tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/gm-foods-19396/articlesGM foods – The Conversation2022-12-29T11:32:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1968182022-12-29T11:32:28Z2022-12-29T11:32:28ZBasmati rice: the new authenticity rules aiming to remove sub-standard varieties from the market<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501900/original/file-20221219-18-vgq8iz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Giving a whole new meaning to dodgy curry. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cooked-plain-white-basmati-rice-served-356954813">StockImageFactory.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Basmati is the most popular speciality rice in the UK, adding extra flavour and subtlety to everything from curries to pilafs to kedgerees. <a href="https://static.wixstatic.com/media/329f2f_ab27e15124aa4a44b3ecbfe5abedd390%7Emv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_657,h_848,al_c,q_85,enc_auto/2020%20Infographic_JPG.jpg">Nearly three-quarters</a> of the world’s basmati is produced in India, and the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/indias-basmati-rice-exports-could-jump-15-key-buyers-stock-up-2022-11-30/">UK buys 3%</a> of it – plus substantial amounts from the second-largest producer, Pakistan. </p>
<p>All has not been well with this delicious staple, however. A huge number of newly cultivated varieties have been permitted in the UK and EU since 2017, and some have turned out to be sub-standard, lacking the unique popcorn-like fragrance that helps to make this rice so sought after. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.riceassociation.org.uk/_files/ugd/329f2f_9ecdd5484ff94aed9998d506b11e77a5.pdf">New rules</a> are being introduced at the beginning of 2023 that aim to take these lesser varieties of basmati off the market. So will this solve the problem?</p>
<h2>Basmati and the code of practice</h2>
<p>Basmati rice has been cultivated for thousands of years in the fertile alluvial plains between the Indus and Ganges rivers. To qualify as basmati, grains must meet certain standards related to things like fragrance, grain length and width, as well as cooked texture. They must also have a mid-range level of amylose, a part of the starch in rice. </p>
<p>Fraudsters nevertheless became notorious for cutting basmati with lesser rice grains, drawn by the fact that it is up to 50% more expensive per kilo. Several decades ago, it wasn’t uncommon for imported basmati to be more than 50% impure. </p>
<p>To get around this problem, the <a href="https://www.riceassociation.org.uk/">UK Rice Association</a> introduced a <a href="https://ricenewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Code-of-Practice-on-Basmati-Rice-by-BRC-UK.pdf">code of practice in 2005</a>. Also followed across the EU, the code specified that basmati could be no more than 7% impure, as well as introducing a list of 15 permitted varieties: nine traditional ones that could be imported duty free and a further six that were modern cultivars. We at Bangor University devised the system of DNA fingerprinting that is used to enforce the code and has sometimes led to <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225771-900-buyer-beware-the-rise-of-food-fraud/">prosecutions for infringements</a>. </p>
<p>The system worked well <a href="https://ricenewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Revised-Code-of-Practice-on-Basmati-Rice-by-BRC-UK.pdf">until 2017</a>, when the code was updated to add 25 new modern cultivars. This followed an explosion in new breeding in the 2000s and 2010s to address the problem that traditional basmati varieties are tall, low-yielding plants which fall over if they are fed with too much fertiliser. Breeders overcame this by using crossing and selection to add the so-called <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.132266399">“green revolution” semi-dwarfing gene</a>, which is also bred into most other modern rice varieties. </p>
<p>India and Pakistan had successfully persuaded the UK and EU that these 25 new varieties were as high in quality as the existing 16, but several years later we were able to show that this wasn’t entirely right. </p>
<p>By developing alternative <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12161-020-01892-3">DNA markers for fingerprinting</a>, we showed that six of the new varieties – five from India and one from Pakistan – had not been properly bred for fragrance. Some did not even contain the version of the <em>BADH2</em> gene that makes basmati fragrance possible in the first place. Although India and Pakistan have rigorous systems for testing rice quality, they don’t necessarily do the gene testing that would have picked up the problem. </p>
<h2>The future</h2>
<p>The Rice Association has responded to this discovery by publishing a new code of practice that removes the six varieties from the permitted list. Coming into force on January 1, the code also adds five new varieties that do pass muster. As a result, consumers should once again be able to buy basmati rice in the knowledge that it is of the highest possible quality. </p>
<p>But this isn’t the end of the story. For one thing, the 7% impurity rule remains. I have long argued that the Rice Association should adopt the same 1% rule that applies in many products – <a href="https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/GM-Animal-Feed-EC-Regulation-Notes-1829-2003-1830-2003.pdf">non-GM foods</a>, for example. There’s no real reason for the basmati exception, and it is also arguably easier to enforce a 1% rule because of the way that DNA testing works. </p>
<p>Secondly, rice breeding is not standing still. Breeders have started focusing on making crosses to allow basmati varieties to inherit genes that will mean they need less fertiliser, resist disease so they need fewer or no pesticides, and even withstand drier growing conditions or salt-contaminated soils. </p>
<p>These varieties aren’t quite ready to hit the market but are urgently needed to increase the sustainability of rice production. But if such varieties are to be sold labelled “basmati”, they too will have to be monitored to ensure they meet the same high standards that consumers expect. The same goes for varieties created by gene editing, which have not yet started emerging but probably will do over the next couple of decades. </p>
<p>If we don’t maintain today’s standards, it may harm the industry – and crucially the farmers who work so hard to produce this beautiful rice in the first place. It’s an interesting case study in how cutting edge technology and the right regulation can ensure that an ancient industry remains fit for purpose in the 21st century.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196818/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Steele has received funding for Bangor University from Defra, UKRI and The Food Standards Agency. </span></em></p>Some versions that were permitted in 2017 don’t have the fragrance that we know and love.Katherine Steele, Senior Lecturer in Sustainable Crop Production, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/978902018-06-28T21:01:16Z2018-06-28T21:01:16ZHow to show consumers the benefits of genetically modified foods<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225347/original/file-20180628-117377-1bj05f5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Canadian government recently approved the sale of genetically modified golden rice that's fortified with Vitamin A. It's an example of a GM food that directly benefits consumers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Josep Folta/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Genetically modified (GM) foods for human consumption have long been a subject of <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/12/the-social-consequences-of-the-gmo-debate/">intense public debate</a>, as well as academic research.</p>
<p>Despite <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/">the lack of scientific evidence to suggest GM foods are less safe</a> than conventional foods, <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.5964&rep=rep1&type=pdf">previous studies have shown</a> that consumers are reluctant to fully embrace them and are wary about the technology that produces them.</p>
<p>In our upcoming article in the <em><a href="http://www.commercialbiotechnology.com/index.php/jcb">Journal of Commercial Biotechnology</a></em>, we show that consumers’ attitudes toward GM foods, their willingness to purchase them and the price they are willing to pay could be significantly improved if GM products had a direct benefit to them personally.</p>
<p>Our findings at the University of Saskatchewan’s Edwards School of Business have the potential to change how agriculture biotechnology companies promote their products —while also creating significant value.</p>
<p>Particularly, we found that consumers are willing to accept and pay premiums for GM foods that have value that’s personally relevant to them.</p>
<p>In other words, changing the value proposition from industry-centric to consumer-centric may help to mitigate the negatives associated with GM food.</p>
<h2>Food insecurity is critical</h2>
<p>In 2009, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf">identified global food security as an increasingly critical issue</a> as the world population grows, and said that meeting the growing demand for food will require agricultural biotechnology. Therefore it’s necessary to build widespread consumer support for GM foods.</p>
<p>Creating GM food with direct consumer benefits could play a pivotal role in gaining such support. Not only does promoting direct consumer benefits have the potential to change perceptions, as shown by our study’s data, it may also be a profitable endeavour.</p>
<p>We surveyed 750 Canadian consumers on different ways of presenting GM foods.</p>
<p>The first group of consumers saw ads for GM foods that promoted several industry-oriented benefits that might indirectly appeal to consumers, such as higher yield, less pesticide usage and enhanced global food supply. These messages were similar to those typically promoted by GM food proponents.</p>
<p>The second group of consumers saw ads focusing on direct consumer benefits, such as better taste and enhanced nutrition.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-have-unlocked-the-secret-of-making-tomatoes-taste-of-something-again-71916">Scientists have unlocked the secret of making tomatoes taste of something again</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The third group of consumers saw ads for GM foods that promoted both direct and indirect consumer benefits.</p>
<p>The result of the survey showed that, not surprisingly, the participants in the first group were less inclined to buy GM foods even at a price that was significantly lower than comparable non-GM foods.</p>
<p>The consumers who were accepting of GM foods appreciated that GM technology had positive benefits and was creating value. However, they believed that the technology has only benefited the industry, and demanded that a portion of the value is passed onto the consumers.</p>
<p>In contrast, the participants who were presented a value proposition that directly benefited both the industry and consumers reported better attitudes toward GM foods, expressed higher purchase intentions —and they were willing to pay a premium for such products.</p>
<h2>Why consumers do, or don’t, accept GM foods</h2>
<p>These findings suggest that how consumers assess the value of GM foods to themselves personally, as opposed to solely how or why the food is made, is fundamental to consumers’ attitudes, purchase intentions and willingness to pay.</p>
<p>Many previous studies have examined consumer perceptions of GM foods and explored why or why not consumers were reluctant to accept them.</p>
<p><a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.5964&rep=rep1&type=pdf">A 2016 study</a> conducted meta-analyses that reviewed hundreds of prior studies and how consumers’ personal characteristics could influence their acceptance of GM food. Those factors included gender (men might be more likely to accept genetically modified foods than women), education, income (consumers with higher income might be less likely to accept GM foods), prior knowledge and family situations, etc.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4031%2C3024&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225137/original/file-20180627-112611-1961wmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Genetically modified foods could be made more attractive to consumers by underscoring how they personally benefit from them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kirill Ignatyev/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In other words, the emphasis has been on figuring out how to change consumers so that they would accept GM foods.</p>
<p>But our research points to the need for the GM industry to change how it’s promoting the products, and to begin producing foods that directly benefit consumers. The agricultural biotechnology industry needs to place consumer interests at the centre of their focus, not only at the time of selling their products, but also during the research and development processes.</p>
<p>Indeed, in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb645">previous University of Saskatchewan study</a>, we found that in Canada, consumer-oriented biotechnology companies generally outperform those that aren’t consumer-oriented. </p>
<h2>Healthier rice</h2>
<p>The idea of a second generation of GM products — the kind that could hold real appeal to consumers — <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01053.x">is now gaining momentum.</a></p>
<p>Earlier this year, <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products/golden-rice-gr2e.html">the Canadian government approved the sale of a vitamin-fortified golden rice</a> that contains higher levels of Vitamin A. It’s potentially beneficial to those consumers who may suffer from Vitamin A deficiencies.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, promoting direct consumer benefits is not a total panacea.</p>
<p>Even while successfully showing consumers how GM foods can benefit them personally, there were still a substantial portion of the participants in our study (35 per cent to 50 per cent, depending on the products presented) who refuse to purchase GM foods no matter the price.</p>
<p>This indicates that consumer acceptance of GM foods is a complicated matter. There’s still a long road ahead to convince shoppers at the grocery stores to consider genetically modified foods as personally beneficial.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97890/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Di Zhang receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanity Research Council (SSHRC) and Genome Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grant Alexander Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Why are consumers so reluctant to embrace genetically modified foods? A new study suggests agricultural biotech companies are failing to show consumers a personal benefit to buying GM foods.David Di Zhang, Associate Professor in Management & Marketing, University of SaskatchewanGrant Alexander Wilson, Faculty Member, Department of Management & Marketing, University of SaskatchewanLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/719162017-01-26T18:25:34Z2017-01-26T18:25:34ZScientists have unlocked the secret of making tomatoes taste of something again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154388/original/image-20170126-30424-1annqdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you shop in a supermarket you may well have asked why the fruit and veg you buy there is so tasteless, especially if you’ve also tried homegrown alternatives. Traditional breeds of tomatoes usually grown in gardens, known as heirloom tomatoes, for example, are often small and strangely shaped and coloured but renowned for their delicious taste. Those in the supermarkets, meanwhile, are often pumped up in size but somewhat insipid to eat.</p>
<p>This is because plants used by most tomato farms have gone through an intensive artificial selection process to breed fruit that are big, red and round – but at the expense of taste. Now a 20-strong international research team <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aal1556">have identified</a> the chemical compounds responsible for the rich flavour of heirloom tomatoes and the genes that produce them. This information could provide a way for farmers to grow tomatoes that taste of something again.</p>
<p>The unique flavour of a tomato is determined by specific airborne molecules called volatiles, which emanate from flavour chemicals in the fruit. By asking a panel of consumers to rate over a hundred varieties of tomato, the researchers identified 13 volatiles that play an important role in producing the most appealing flavours. They also found that these molecules were significantly reduced in modern tomato varieties compared to the heirloom ones. And they found that bigger tomatoes tended to have less sugar, another reason why large supermarket fruits often fail to inspire.</p>
<p>Tomatoes <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/100/5/1085/136832/Domestication-and-Breeding-of-Tomatoes-What-have">originally hail</a> from the Andean region of South America and belong to the Solanaceae family, making them relatively close relations of potatoes and peppers. The original, ancestral tomato was very small, more like a pea, showing just how much human intervention has swollen the fruit. We don’t know how long they have been grown for human consumption but they had reached an advanced stage of domestication by the 15th century when they were taken to Europe.</p>
<p>Before the 20th century, tomato varieties were commonly developed in families and small communities (which <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/heirloom_tomatoes_bizarre_evolution_the_secret_history_of_the_tastiest_summer_treat/">explains the name “heirloom</a>”). With the industrialisation of farming, the <a href="http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=100_1">serious business of tomato breeding</a> began with intensive selection for fruit size and shelf life. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/100/5/1085/136832/Domestication-and-Breeding-of-Tomatoes-What-have">more recent effort</a> has been put into improving the flavour of tomatoes through breeding. But the new research appears to indicate that this has ultimately been unsuccessful and that earlier breeding efforts have doomed modern commercial varieties to mediocrity. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Family heirlooms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new paper, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aal1556">published in Science</a>, emphasises what seems to be a constant conflict between the food industry’s desire for profit and what the public actually want. The researchers tactfully excuse the way tomatoes have been bred for size and shelf-life at the expense of taste as being down to breeders’ inability to analyse the fruit’s chemical composition and find the right volatiles.</p>
<p>But many people will find this hard to swallow. After all, the new research itself used the most ancient volatile analysis system there is: the human taster. It wouldn’t have taken much for farmers to incorporate taste trials into their breeding programmes.</p>
<p>Because modern farmed tomatoes have only lost their flavour in the last hundred years or so and varieties are still available that produce the tasty volatiles, it should be possible to reinsert the crucial taste genes back into commercial varieties. This could be done by genetic modification or conventional breeding. Just as we are seeing a resurgence in <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ed0edb8e-d9ab-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818">organic and artisan growing</a>, it would be great to see a new generation of tomato breeders interested in returning flavour to the fruit using wild and heirloom varieties, while maintaining other commercially desirable traits. </p>
<p>There is significant <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-failure-to-understand-gm-opposition-is-stifling-debate-and-halting-progress-62142">public opposition</a> to the idea of genetically modifying foods by inserting genes into a plant’s DNA in the lab. But the idea of reinserting lost genes <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">may be more palatable</a> to the public than introducing completely new ones. Either way, it shows how perverse the food industry’s methods are that we may need to use one of the world’s most advanced technologies to give an inherently delicious food some flavour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Tosh receives funding from the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and previously has recived grants from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). He is active at a local level with the Green Party, England and Wales. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Niall Conboy receives funding from BBSRC</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas McDaniel receives funding from BBSRC. </span></em></p>New research pinpoints the genes that could counteract decades of bland breeding.Colin Tosh, Lecturer in Ecology, Evolution and Computational Biology, Newcastle UniversityNiall Conboy, PhD candidate, Newcastle UniversityThomas McDaniel, PhD candidate, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/615602016-06-24T21:30:23Z2016-06-24T21:30:23ZWhy the GM food labeling debate is not over<p>The U.S. Senate this week reached a compromise to require food manufacturers to label foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, a bill that would preempt state-level laws. The <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/23/483290269/senate-unveils-a-national-gmo-labeling-bill">deal</a> comes only one week before Vermont’s law to require GM food labeling will go into effect. If the Senate compromise bill is voted on and passed by a supermajority and signed into law by President Obama, Vermont’s law will be superseded.</p>
<p>The Vermont law stipulates a positive declaration – that is, a label must indicate there are some ingredients are genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Senate proposal, which <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/roberts-stabenow-reach-deal-gmo-labeling#.V2xPNvmgZ28.mailto">backers</a> said is meant to avoid a patchwork of state laws, gives food manufacturers a number of options for how to disclose which products have GM ingredients. Companies could place text on labels, offer a Quick Response (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code">QR</a>) code that would be read with a smartphone or provide a phone number or website with more information. Organic products can be <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article85533907.html">labeled</a> “non-GMO.”</p>
<p>Although the Vermont law and the Senate bill bring the question of labeling to the forefront, the debate over GM food and consumer education has been percolating for some 25 years. </p>
<p>I have studied the social science research about whether and how GM foods should be labeled. In my view, the proposed federal legislation, while consistent across the country, makes it very difficult for consumers to obtain the information they want to know – namely, whether a product has been produced using GM technology or ingredients. </p>
<h2>What labels convey</h2>
<p>In a 2013 <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.26163">study</a>, Arizona State University professors Gary Marchant and Guy Cardineu identified five issues that are important to the decision of whether or not to label: </p>
<ul>
<li>public opinion </li>
<li>consumer choice </li>
<li>the legality of labeling requirements</li>
<li>costs and benefits of labeling, and </li>
<li>risks and benefits of GM foods. </li>
</ul>
<p>They concluded: “While the case for GM labeling seems compelling on first appearance, a closer examination of the scientific, legal, economic and policy arguments and evidence demonstrates that compulsory GM labeling is unwarranted, unnecessary and being manipulated by a cynical and self-serving campaign funded and organized by the organic food industry.” </p>
<p>But I have examined the current state of evidence and have come to the opposite conclusion, as have American courts and several major corporations.</p>
<p>For starters, for at least 15 years, research surveys have found that consumers desire labeling. This has been indicated by <a href="http://4bgr3aepis44c9bxt1ulxsyq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/foodpoll2008.pdf">Consumer</a> <a href="http://4bgr3aepis44c9bxt1ulxsyq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014_GMO_survey_report.pdf">Reports</a>, my <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.9987&rep=rep1&type=pdf">own research</a> and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567">many</a> <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt015">others</a>. Public opinion is on the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2990/32_1_73">side of labeling</a>.</p>
<p>Labels play a significant role in <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org">facilitating consumer choice</a> in the case of credence goods. These are goods for that consumers cannot determine, through search nor experience, whether a product contains an attribute or quality they prefer, such as the use of GM technology. Labels convey to consumers a <a href="http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjpolec/v_3a82_3ay_3a1974_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a729-54.htm">desired or undesired attribute</a>.</p>
<p>On the question of legality of labeling requirements, it is worth noting that legal arguments against labeling have failed. Challenged by the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association of America and several other trade groups, the Vermont law was <a href="http://www.agweb.com/blog/ag-in-the-courtroom/recapping-round-1-of-the-vermont-gmo-labeling-lawsuit/">upheld in April 2015</a>. And, while bill HR 1599 passed the U.S. House of Representatives in July of 2015, which would have prohibited states from promulgating their own labeling laws, it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/business/bill-to-stop-states-requiring-labeling-of-gmo-foods-fails.html">failed to pass the U.S Senate</a> in March 2016.</p>
<p>Also, there is no published evidence that GM labels will increase the cost of food. Reports, funded by industry, advocacy and consumer groups have estimated cost ranges between <a href="https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GMO_labeling_cost_findings_Exe_Summ.pdf">zero and US$500 per year for a family of four</a>.</p>
<p>But the Campbell’s company has publicly stated the cost of labeling is negligible. If there are costs, they will not be passed on to consumers. Company spokesman Tom Hushen <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/campbell%E2%80%99s-will-label-gmos%E2%80%94and-sky-will-not-fall">said</a>, “To be clear, there will be no price increase as a result of Vermont or national GMO labeling for Campbell products.”</p>
<h2>Changing corporate positions</h2>
<p>That leaves only Marchant and Cardineu’s fifth point: the risks and benefits of GM foods. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine earlier this year released an <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">exhaustive report</a> on GM foods and found there is no evidence of health risks from genetically modified ingredients.</p>
<p>But pro-GM labeling advocates have not used the GM safety issue in their arguments. Instead, they focus on consumers’ right to know what is in their food and how it is produced.</p>
<p>Several major corporations, which have previously spent millions of dollars to defeat mandatory GM labels, have indicated they will label their products or have already. Campbell’s, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars and ConAgra had said <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/2016/04/02/companies-begin-embracing-gmo-labeling/82267542/">they would label</a> their products nationwide in order to be in compliance with Vermont’s anticipated law. PepsiCo and Frito Lay have quietly <a href="https://consumerist.com/2016/05/11/pepsi-frito-lay-quietly-adding-gmo-ingredient-labels-to-some-foods/">begun to label</a> already without public fanfare.</p>
<p>Campbell’s President and CEO Denise Morrison <a href="http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/newsroom/news/2016/01/07/labeling/">said in a statement</a>, “Our decision (to label) was guided by our Purpose; rooted in our consumer-first mindset; and driven by our commitment to transparency – to be open and honest about our food. I truly believe it is the right thing to do for consumers and for our business.” </p>
<p>However, the Senate proposal, if it comes into law, does not make it easy for consumers to actually find out whether a product has GM contents at the supermarket.</p>
<p>One food manufacturing company may choose a QR code, another a label, another a symbol and another a toll-free number. If consumers do not see a disclosure using words, as the Vermont law requires, they look for a symbol. If they don’t see a symbol, they scan the product with a smartphone or call a telephone number. If that doesn’t provide information, they go to a website. For a consumer purchasing multiple products, this will be a cumbersome process. While it has been said that Vermont’s law, in isolation, <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/282763-assaults-on-modern-agriculture">may cause chaos for industry</a>, as proposed, the compromise bill will cause chaos for consumers seeking more transparency in the food system.</p>
<p>In the months ahead, we will see whether the Senate bill is turned into law and how food makers choose to comply with any disclosure requirements. But given the strong consumer support for labeling, it is unlikely that the debate over GM food labeling will die down.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Kolodinsky receives funding from USDA. She provided a literature review on consumer perceptions of the word natural related to GMOs for the VT Attorney General and has consulted with them on origin labels. She is a professor at the University of Vermont and Directs their Center for Rural Studies/Food Systems Research Collaborative. She has conducted research on the issue of the economics of information for almost 30 years. </span></em></p>Lawmakers reach a deal on national labeling rules for foods that contain GMOs, but if passed, it won’t give consumers what research has shown consumers want.Jane Kolodinsky, Professor and Chair Community Development and Applied Economics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565302016-06-24T14:42:45Z2016-06-24T14:42:45ZWhat consumers want in GM food labeling is simpler than you think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127835/original/image-20160622-7158-whqi66.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social research shows that consumers want a say in GM food labeling. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ctsenatedems/8777078498/in/photolist-enAPDC-aAWFte-mewcDs-aAZo1f-en2rKP-hRL2AF-o24vU2-22rMwT-dxDPTg-6RFrVE-emLR4X-F5FJYd-encnLw-emLSSH-fcATGZ-emLN3a-encmhd-nbFeP4-aAZodU-domMbu-enAWZf-emLY5e-emLWB4-emLQhp-eoj2RG-encwqf-emLNXR-eFuPac-eFuNX6-encz6N-emLNsF-encscu-emLWDB-emLYSB-nGdqwj-pHG6cJ-emLXhk-encwwQ-emLXK2-emLSkV-dBmsTC-emLPBD-emLYor-gvEQFy-nJ25cB-fk4oJw-axmtsC-etV6fy-dnf1dp-ofh6vU">ctsenatedems/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fast-approaching July 1, 2016, deadline for Vermont’s new labeling law – and a new federal proposal that would set a <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/23/483290269/senate-unveils-a-national-gmo-labeling-bill">national system for disclosure</a> – for genetically modified (GM) food has provoked a range of responses from food manufacturers while reigniting debate about the need to balance the weight of scientific evidence against consumer demand for transparency. At the center of the debate lay questions of trust in science and how the ways we communicate risk serve to increase or decrease that trust. </p>
<p>On the industry side, in January, Campbell declared support for <a href="http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/newsroom/news/2016/01/07/labeling/">mandatory labeling for products containing GM ingredients</a>, and in March, General Mills announced its own intent to <a href="https://www.generalmills.com/News/Issues/on-biotechnology">voluntarily label GM food products</a>. Other big players, such as chocolatier Mars, have made similar <a href="http://www.mars.com/global/about-us/policies-and-practices/gmo-policy">announcements</a>. With Vermont’s labeling law looming, General Mills and others have appeared to focus their efforts on arguing for a nationwide approach to GM food labeling. </p>
<p>Perhaps not coincidentally, General Mills’ announcement came only days after the failed efforts by the U.S. House and some members of the U.S. Senate to ban states from requiring mandatory GM food labeling. Specifically, the House bill would have prohibited states from requiring GM food labeling on the basis that informing them is not <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599">“necessary to protect public health and safety or to prevent the label from being false or misleading.”</a> The Senate bill sought to establish voluntary labeling standards for GM foods, an effort that ultimately expired due to <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo-food-labeling-bill-us-senate">lack of needed support</a>. </p>
<p>As the debate over GM food labeling continues to rage, it’s worth looking at the reasons consumers support or oppose labeling. A body of communication research, including a recent study we co-authored, suggests that consumers’ views on GM foods reflect their values and how information about labeling is communicated to them more than the actual science. </p>
<h2>Shouldn’t latest science settle it?</h2>
<p>The fault lines over GM food labeling at this point are well-established. </p>
<p>On the one hand, labeling proponents argue that consumers have the <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/03/124802/#.V2rHeZMrI6g">right to know</a> what is in the food they purchase so as to avoid possible health risks associated with GM ingredients. Others argue that labeling gives consumers the ability to avoid GM ingredients as a larger ideological statement about agro-food industry. </p>
<p>More generally, one could say that resistance to labeling flies against consumer demand in an age when experts admonish us to read nutrition labels to watch our sugar intake and avoid certain types of fats. Also, not telling people makes it look like there is something that the food manufacturers are hiding, which can damage the trust consumers place in them. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Campbell’s is one food company that has come out in support of labeling genetically modified ingredients in foods, despite the fact that scientific reviews do not show any harm to human health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scjn/11969323654/in/photolist-j7u8wJ-dAZEwX-qJT9mH-8Pqijw-mabeTx-jeFUVd-8aBmdL-jbrrkZ-9s54D-8aBm4s-7pKv3G-7FHswk-5Uzeat-48V57s-qiTEkC-qap3o3-pmKmdU-fVnQ62-q9Kgqx-ont589-p38XLp-ctkEGE-2R7zbX-qxczwx-jhtXgn-kvnaDL-nZ4N9y-hc9w1f-n2mvyk-8VA5Sw-fS7Txw-HRhJMw-gFK7rw-3ZtJF-DAgsKP-4C8kXz-7983Dc-5ErcXJ-6iZQ9U-i2TF1-6iZQmq-6iZQx7-dpYqaK-2CXULP-2twVSL-tUdKu8-7q4b8w-frx1E-2mEua3-2eDSA7">scjn/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the other hand, labeling opponents point to a lack of scientific evidence that GM ingredients are harmful to public health or the environment and argue that labeling will present an unnecessary financial burden on food manufacturers. Others note that consumers who wish to avoid food with GM ingredients <a href="http://people.forestry.oregonstate.edu/steve-strauss/sites/people.forestry.oregonstate.edu.steve-strauss/files/Strauss%20-%20GMO%20labeling%20summary%20-%20Univ%20N%20TX%20-%20Oct%202014.pdf">already have the option to purchase organic food products</a>, which provide non-GM options. </p>
<p>Regarding the balance of scientific evidence on safety, a recently released <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395">National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report</a> would seem to <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">lay to rest the issue</a>. Its exhaustive review of over 900 scientific publications found, among other things, no solid findings showing a difference between the health risks of eating genetically engineered or conventionally bred food ingredients. </p>
<p>It is doubtful, however, that the NAS report will entirely remove public doubt about the risks or demands for labeling. </p>
<p>Research on public risk perceptions <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/236/4799/280">shows</a> that it is not only the objective scientific assessment of risk that matters but also the subjective qualities of risk. These include whether people have control over their exposure to potential risks and whether they believe the risks are well-understood by scientists. Trust in the risk managers is also key, and people want to have a voice in decisions that ultimately affect them. </p>
<h2>Value of consumer involvement</h2>
<p>In terms of risk perceptions, results from a 2015 Pew Center study found that 57 percent of Americans did not believe that GM foods are safe. The Pew study found that 67 percent do not believe that scientists yet have a clear understanding of the public health implications of GM foods. Indeed, the Pew study found that the strongest predictor of believing that GM foods are safe is whether people believe scientists have a <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/">clear understanding of the risks</a>. </p>
<p>In comparison, 88 percent of scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/">believed GM foods to be safe</a>.</p>
<p>Some may see this opinion divide as evidence of an irrational public. We see it as evidence of communication processes that have paid inadequate attention to how consumers’ values affect risk-based decision making. </p>
<p>Rather than having a voice in the decisions, consumers are mostly asked to trust the experts, typically a faceless government institution or regulatory body. This can lead to a disconnect in what scientists and consumers consider the relevant facts in a decision.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118149">own research</a>, recently published in the Journal of Risk Research, found that people are much more supportive of a labeling decision (regardless of the outcome) when they were told that food companies had considered public input before making their decision. Therefore, recounting consumers’ influence in GM labeling decisions is an important factor on how people support the decisions.</p>
<p>Examples show how some organizations are recognizing the importance of conveying this information. In the <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395.">press release</a> accompanying the recent NAS report, Committee Chair Fred Gould offered this statement: that the committee “focused on listening carefully and responding thoughtfully to members of the public who have concerns about GE crops and foods….” </p>
<p>Similarly, Campbell’s President and Chief Executive Officer Denise Morrison said in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/business/campbell-labels-will-disclose-gmo-ingredients.html?_r=0">New York Times article</a> about the food manufacturer’s labeling decision, “We’ve always believed consumers have a right to know what’s in their food…. We know that 92 percent of Americans support G.M.O. labeling, and transparency is a critical part of our purpose.” </p>
<p>Examining the effect of these statements remain questions for future research. Our previous work would suggest, however, that underscoring how public input was considered may likely lead to greater support for the NAS conclusions or Campbell’s decision, even if people do not wholly endorse the outcomes. </p>
<p>Although transparency is not a cure-all, including people in the decision-making process and providing information about how an organization reached its decision can lead to greater decision acceptance. </p>
<p>To this end, incorporating consumers’ values in decisions that affect them, such as what ingredients manufacturers put in their food products, and communicating that back to the public can go a long way toward building trust and bridging the gaps between scientific and public understanding of risk.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56530/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine McComas has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. National Parks Service. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham Dixon receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Besley receives funding from the Department of Agriculture.</span></em></p>The Senate has just reached an agreement for a national system to label foods with genetically modified ingredients. What do consumers actually want from GM food labeling?Katherine McComas, Professor of Communication, Cornell UniversityGraham Dixon, Assistant Professor of Science and Risk Communication, Washington State UniversityJohn C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/596342016-06-09T14:42:32Z2016-06-09T14:42:32ZThe next ‘green revolution’ should focus on hunger – not profit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125718/original/image-20160608-3516-1eg0dei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=84%2C446%2C5319%2C2768&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">avemario / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The “<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=frNfVx-KZOcC&pg=PA1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false">green revolution</a>” of the 1960s delivered vast increases in food production, averting famines and political instability across the world. There are now urgent appeals for a <a href="http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html">second green revolution</a> to make food more sustainable, involving climate-adapted crops (some genetically-modified), healthier soil and reduced chemical inputs. Sadly, incentives on offer for agri-tech firms mean our hopes of achieving such a revolution are under grave threat.</p>
<p>As was the case 50 years ago, those who grow our food are tasked with growing healthy plants in the face of drought, lack of nutrients, pests, and diseases. But this is where the similarity ends. In 2016, climate change is already hitting home, wreaking havoc with <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/508.full.pdf+html">patterns of weather</a> and <a href="http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2827">disease</a>. Furthermore, <a href="http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html">ten billion people</a> will need feeding by 2050, requiring us to produce as much food between now and then as has been produced in the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/world-hunger-50-years-food-history/story?id=8736358">whole of human history</a>. </p>
<p>This isn’t just a technical problem for agricultural scientists. Alongside the challenge of supplying adequate calories in ever harsher environments, we must also tackle some deep-rooted obstacles to a fair and safe food supply.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125915/original/image-20160609-7074-wer8x5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">High-yielding wheat developed at government research institutes in the 1950s and 60s by Nobel-winner Norman Borlaug was distributed across the world – in particular famine-stricken India.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://blog.cimmyt.org/from-east-asia-to-south-asia-via-mexico-how-one-gene-changed-the-course-of-history/">CIMMYT</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The economic landscape of agricultural research is radically different to that which enabled the first green revolution. Today, it is overwhelmingly driven by an international private sector, whereas in the past government-funded institutes would develop and distribute better crops and farming techniques. </p>
<p>This shift away from state-funded research poses significant risks when government regulation threatens profits, as evidenced by the recent debate over the re-licencing of the herbicide glyphosate. The argument here should be about the trade-off between the weed-killing benefits of a chemical versus possible negative effects on <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract">human health</a> and the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139313001923">environment</a>. However, the profitability of glyphosate-containing herbicides and glyphosate-tolerant crop plants is dependent upon its legality. As a result, conflicts of interest between profits and safety are the true drivers of such controversies, leading to <a href="http://lobbyfacts.eu/">industrial-scale lobbying</a> by agri-tech which undermines the potential for EU regulators to make a balanced decision.</p>
<p>Of equal concern is the <a href="https://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/24508541.pdf">rampant patenting of the biological resources</a> which underlie our food systems. As we obtain more and more information from crop genomes, the scientific process of sharing one’s research should facilitate huge improvements in crop production around the world. Instead, each additional level of biological information has provided a further opportunity for these crops to become ever more exclusive, based on the ability to pay for access rather than a requirement.</p>
<p>The profitability of patents is also distorting the priorities of agri-tech and research institutes. For instance, engineering so-called “resistance” genes into a crop suffering from a microbial disease is a <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/WO2003000906A2?cl=en">readily patentable process</a>. In addition, once a microbe evolves to overcome the resistance gene, the farmer must then purchase a different variety which has been genetically engineered with the next line of defence. Both of these factors have the potential to push research away from a more multi-layered approach to crop protection and more towards those “innovations” which can be licenced for profit.</p>
<p>Finally, the idea in most privatised sectors is that competition between different companies promotes innovation and maintains fair prices for consumers. This simply isn’t the case in agri-tech. At present, just <a href="http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_breakbad_23dec15.pdf">three companies</a> own a staggering 51% of the world’s agri-chemicals and 55% of the world’s commercial seed varieties. This situation is only worsening, as these <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/may/05/monsanto-dow-syngenta-rush-for-mega-mergers-puts-food-security-at-risk">companies seek mergers</a> to consolidate their market share and increase investment potential. </p>
<p>Such concentration of power over the price and distribution of products is rarely tolerated in other industries, and it is particularly worrying to see such a monopoly over our means to grow food. If access to the knowledge gained during the second green revolution is to be shaped by market forces, we should at least ensure that this is a market with competition.</p>
<p>It should be possible to avert a global food crisis, but we must start by <a href="https://theconversation.com/royal-society-president-gm-crops-feed-much-of-the-world-today-why-not-tomorrows-generations-59715">reframing the debate</a>. Most public discussion of food security is dominated by an anti-science lobby that is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/may/27/gm-crops-food-security-calestous-juma-africa">highly sceptical</a> about the safety of GM-technology, when all GM crops really represent is a small part of a complex solution. </p>
<p>The deeper issue lies in the ownership of the technology we need to grow food, and the way that science and intellectual property have been misappropriated. We require nothing less than a total <a href="http://osseeds.org/faqs/">restructuring</a> of the global agri-tech sector – only then can we ensure billions more people can sustainably feed themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59634/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will Buswell receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust, a charitable trust which provides grants and scholarships for research and education.</span></em></p>Ensuring the next 10 billion people are fed fairly will require a radical restructuring of global agri-tech.Will, PhD Student in Plant Immunity, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/595642016-06-03T01:02:21Z2016-06-03T01:02:21ZMoving beyond pro/con debates over genetically engineered crops<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124694/original/image-20160601-1425-1v3ghax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Field tests of flood-tolerant 'scuba rice.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricephotos/9203724733/in/photolist-afTW1Z-f2iuHc-73nSmq-77bi3g-bAzz6P-dbSJ5C-9y4Bmy-uv8LUu">International Rice Research Institute/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the 1980s biologists have used genetic engineering to express novel traits in crop plants. Over the last 20 years, these crops have been grown on more than one billion acres in the United States and globally. Despite their rapid adoption by farmers, genetically engineered (GE) crops remain controversial among many consumers, who have sometimes found it hard to obtain accurate information. </p>
<p>Last month the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a <a href="https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/">review</a> of 20 years of data regarding GE crops. The report largely confirms findings from <a href="https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2014/06/05/related-reports/">previous National Academies reports</a> and reviews produced by other major scientific organizations around the world, including the <a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">World Health Organization</a> and the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf">European Commission</a>. </p>
<p>I direct a <a href="http://www.cropgeneticsinnovation.org/">laboratory</a> that studies rice, a staple food crop for half the world’s people. Researchers in my lab are identifying genes that control tolerance to environmental stress and resistance to disease. We use genetic engineering and other genetic methods to understand gene function. </p>
<p>I strongly agree with the NAS report that each crop, whether bred conventionally or developed through genetic engineering, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Every crop is different, each trait is different and the needs of each farmer are different too. More progress in crop improvement can be made by using both conventional breeding and genetic engineering than using either approach alone.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124704/original/image-20160601-1955-1afxcez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Modern cultivated corn was domesticated from teosinte, an ancient grass, over more than 6,000 years through conventional breeding.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=104207&org=NSF">Nicole Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Convergence between biotech and conventional breeding</h2>
<p>New molecular tools are blurring the distinction between genetic improvements made with conventional breeding and those made with modern genetic methods. One example is marker assisted breeding, in which geneticists identify genes or chromosomal regions associated with traits desired by farmers and/or consumers. Researchers then look for particular markers (patterns) in a plant’s DNA that are associated with these genes. Using these genetic markers, they can efficiently identify plants carrying the desired genetic fingerprints and eliminate plants with undesirable genetics. </p>
<p>Ten years ago my collaborators and I isolated <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04920">a gene, called Sub1</a>, that controls tolerance to flooding. Million of rice farmers in South and Southeast Asia grow rice in flood prone regions, so this trait is extremely valuable. Most varieties of rice will die after three days of complete submergence but plants with the Sub1 gene can withstand two weeks of complete submergence. Last year, nearly five million farmers grew Sub1 rice varieties developed by my collaborators at the <a href="http://irri.org/">International Rice Research Institute</a> using marker assisted breeding.</p>
<p>In another example, researchers identified genetic variants that are associated with hornlessness (referred to as “polled”) in cattle – a trait that is common in beef breeds but rare in dairy breeds. Farmers routinely dehorn dairy cattle to protect their handlers and prevent the animals from harming each other. Because this process is painful and frightening for the animals, <a href="https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Castration-and-Dehorning-of-Cattle.aspx">veterinary experts</a> have called for research into alternative options.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3560">study</a> published last month, scientists used genome editing and reproductive cloning to produce dairy cows that carried a naturally occurring mutation for hornlessness. This approach has the potential to improve the welfare of millions of cattle each year.</p>
<h2>Reducing chemical insecticides and enhancing yield</h2>
<p>In assessing how GE crops affect crop productivity, human health and the environment, the NAS study primarily focused on two traits that have been engineered into plants: resistance to insect pests and tolerance of herbicides. </p>
<p>The study found that farmers who planted crops engineered to contain the insect-resistant trait – based on genes from the bacterium <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em>, or Bt – generally experienced fewer losses and applied fewer chemical insecticide sprays than farmers who planted non-Bt varieties. It also concluded that farms where Bt crops were planted had more insect biodiversity than farms where growers used broad-spectrum insecticides on conventional crops. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124852/original/image-20160601-1943-fpfb7g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=441&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Genetically modified crops currently grown in the United States (IR=insect resistant, HT=herbicide tolerant, DT=drought tolerant, VR=virus resistant).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/agriculture/genetically-modified-gm-crops-techniques-and-applications-0-710/">Colorado State University Extension</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The committee found that herbicide-resistant (HR) crops contribute to greater yields because weeds can be controlled more easily. For example, farmers that planted HR canola reaped greater yields and returns, which led to wide adoption of this crop variety. </p>
<p>Another benefit of planting of HR crops is reduced tillage – the process of turning the soil. Before planting, farmers must kill the weeds in their fields. Before the advent of herbicides and HR crops, farmers controlled weeds by tilling. However, tilling causes erosion and runoff, and requires energy to fuel the tractors. Many farmers prefer reduced tillage practices because they enhance sustainable management. With HR crops, farmers can control weeds effectively without tilling. </p>
<p>The committee noted a clear association between the planting of HR crops and reduced-till agricultural practices over the last two decades. However, it is unclear if the adoption of HR crops resulted in decisions by farmers to use conservation tillage, or if farmers who were using conservation tillage adopted HR crops more readily.</p>
<p>In areas where planting of HR crops led to heavy reliance on the herbicide glyphosate, some weeds evolved resistance to the herbicide, making it difficult for farmers to control weeds using this herbicide. The NAS report concluded that sustainable use of Bt and HR crops will require use of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/introduction-integrated-pest-management">integrated pest management strategies</a>. </p>
<p>The report also discusses seven other GE food crops grown in 2015, including apple (<em>Malus domestica</em>), canola (<em>Brassica napus</em>), sugar beet (<em>Beta vulgaris</em>), papaya (<em>Carica papaya</em>), potato, squash (<em>Cucurbita pepo</em>) and eggplant (<em>Solanum melongena</em>). </p>
<p>Papaya is a particularly important example. In the 1950s, papaya ringspot virus wiped out nearly all papaya production on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. As the virus spread to other islands, many farmers feared that it would wipe out the Hawaiian papaya crop. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/124854/original/image-20160601-1425-wyxz7d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Papaya infected with ringspot virus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotnelson/5681077107/in/photolist-9E4VGu-r5tSJK-9E22DT-pcrCVd-peSWEi-9TvjyV-9E21ii-9TyaqA-9TvjKa-9E21oR-9E4V9L-nebFBZ-og5rNM-nebYHJ-pfWd1W-FL2ujx-9E21uD-9E4VZA-9TvjGF-yVpSFH-9E4UDh-9E4UwS-9E4UKm-FEasxn-9TvjJg-qnSQFu-Ai8Lnm-9E22tv-9E4UTy-9E219a-9E4UZY-wpcb1n-wYHSbx-A2HwF9-Ah2E6L-vHM2mi-vZCYc5-zpBqR5-A54833-qRJN5f-syUv1x-shmYZN-swD3Bs-9E4TVo-znTbzD-cNNCAS-D9UBYa-oxEBJF-ovGKvm-w267Pq">Scot Nelson/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1998 Hawaiian plant pathologist <a href="http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/papaya-gmo-success-story.html">Dennis Gonsalves</a> used genetic engineering to splice a small snippet of ringspot virus DNA into the papaya genome. The resulting genetically engineered papaya trees were immune to infection and produced 10-20 fold more fruit than infected crops. Dennis’ pioneering work <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/20/science/stalked-by-deadly-virus-papaya-lives-to-breed-again.html?pagewanted=all">rescued the papaya industry</a>. Twenty years later, this is still the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHI-I-2010-1004-01">only method</a> for controlling papaya ringspot virus. Today, despite <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/on-hawaii-a-lonely-quest-for-facts-about-gmos.html?_r=0">protests by some consumers</a>, 80 percent of the Hawaiian papaya crop is genetically engineered. </p>
<p>Scientists have also used genetic engineering to combat a pest called the fruit and shoot borer, which preys on eggplant in Asia. Farmers in Bangladesh often spray insecticides every 2-3 days, and sometimes as often as twice daily, to control it. The World Health Organization <a href="http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/PesticidesHealth2.pdf">estimates</a> that some three million cases of pesticide poisoning and over than 250,000 deaths occur worldwide every year. </p>
<p>To reduce chemical sprays on eggplant, scientists at Cornell University and in Bangladesh engineered Bt into the eggplant genome. Bt <em>brinjal</em> (eggplant) was introduced in Bangladesh in 2013. Last year <a href="http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/bt-brinjal-beyond-boundaries">108 Bangladeshi farmers grew it</a> and were able to drastically reduce insecticides sprays. </p>
<h2>Feed the world in an ecologically based manner</h2>
<p>Genetically improved crops have benefited many farmers, but it is clear that genetic improvement alone cannot address the wide variety of complex challenges that farmers face. Ecologically based farming approaches as well as infrastructure and appropriate policies are also needed. </p>
<p>Instead of worrying about the genes in our food, we need to focus on ways to help families, farmers and rural communities thrive. We must be sure that everyone can afford the food and we must minimize environmental degradation. I hope that the NAS report can help move the discussions beyond distracting pro/con arguments about GE crops and refocus them on using every appropriate technology to feed the world in an ecologically based manner.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59564/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pamela Ronald is a professor in the dept of Plant Pathology and the Genome Center at UC Davis. She also serves as Director of Grass Genetics at the Joint Bioenergy Institute. She serves on the scientific advisory board of the non profit Boyce Thompson institute and the non profit Donald Danforth Center. She lectures widely and occasionally receives speaking fees. Her speaking schedule is listed here: <a href="http://www.cropgeneticsinnovation.org/speaking-schedule-and-recent-apeearances/">http://www.cropgeneticsinnovation.org/speaking-schedule-and-recent-apeearances/</a>. She is coauthor of "Tomorrows Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food. Twenty years ago she received research funding from Monsanto to study the genetic basis of disease resistance in rice.</span></em></p>Advocates have argued for years about whether genetically engineered crops are safe to grow and eat. Plant pathologist and geneticist Pamela Ronald calls for a more nuanced discussion.Pamela Ronald, Professor of Plant Pathology, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/592892016-05-17T22:36:27Z2016-05-17T22:36:27ZNew report on GE crops avoids simple answers – and that’s the point, study members say<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122891/original/image-20160517-9487-2d6068.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-408837589/stock-photo-scientist-research-genetic-improvement-jasmine-rice-in-lab.html?src=7HMh4Dc6vOfwNY6F1BagdA-1-38">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: In a <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects">new report</a>, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have provided a broad review of available information on genetically engineered (GE) crops and their impacts on the environment and human health.</em></p>
<p><em>The study, produced by a <a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/1#v">committee of 20 experts</a> from diverse fields, found “no conclusive evidence of cause-and-effect relationships between GE crops and environmental problems,” such as reduced biodiversity in areas where GE crops are planted. Similarly, it found “no substantiated evidence” that foods from GE crops are less safe than foods from non-GE crops.</em> </p>
<p><em>However, the report also concluded that although planting crops engineered to resist pests and/or herbicides generally has paid off economically for farmers, damaging levels of resistance have evolved in some targeted pests and weeds. And it found that regulations governing GE crops in some countries, including the United States, should be updated to reflect advances in genetic engineering.</em></p>
<p><em>Here we offer perspectives from three members of the study committee. Their comments underline a major theme of the report: discussions about GE crops need to move past broad pro/con statements and address the complexities of this fast-evolving field.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Peter Kareiva</h2>
<p><strong>Director, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles</strong></p>
<p>There is no denying the impassioned public controversy surrounding GE crops and food. Somehow, the scientific community has been largely caught off guard by this debate – perhaps by not fully appreciating how deeply people relate to their food and how it is produced. </p>
<p>Given the swirl of public misgivings, I am proud of what is a profoundly sensible report, and a process that really listened to the public. Our committee held three public meetings and heard from 80 invited speakers. We received over 700 public comments and read every one of them. We trudged our way through hundreds of published scientific articles. </p>
<p>I know many people want a definitive unqualified “thumbs up” or thumbs down" from our committee. They are not going to find it in this report. Because GE crops are developed in so many different ways, with so many different traits, and in so many different plant species or varieties, we cannot give a one-size-fits-all verdict. Hoping for a simple yes or no in this matter is akin to expecting a committee of experts to conclude “men are good” or “men are bad.” However, setting aside absolutes, we can say some things that should be useful to the public dialogue.</p>
<p>The adoption of GE crops has yielded generally positive economic benefits (but not always), and in some cases clear environmental benefits. For instance, the widespread planting of crops with insect-resistant traits has reduced the spraying of insecticides. While there is some evidence of yield increases due to GE crops when simultaneous field-to-field comparisons are made, it is hard to attribute global improvements in crop production to GE technology at a time when many aspects of the farming system are changing, and when conventional breeding is also making improvements. </p>
<p>Many people worry that GE foods may have adverse effects on human health. I personally found this literature challenging (it is not my field) and fascinating. We went back to original studies in which animals were fed GE foods, and also looked at epidemiological data for humans. We found no solid evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops. </p>
<p>Promises have been made about GE crops addressing world hunger. GE crops alone cannot do this, and there are major challenges in fitting them into local environments, averting the evolution of resistance in the case of anti-pest modifications, and making GE seeds available and helpful to smallholders (small farmers). </p>
<p>Emerging technologies and new traits may hold great future promise. For example, research is underway around the world to develop crops that use nutrients more efficiently and increase their drought tolerance and disease resistance. It is too early, however, to predict what results will come from this work.</p>
<p>Continued regulatory vigilance is warranted. Any new crop variety with novel traits – whether genetically engineered or conventionally bred – should be subjected to safety testing, but in a tiered fashion so that testing is directed where it is most needed. Our report calls for increased transparency and public participation, and as a researcher in the field I personally hope that it catalyzes the establishment of open data bases tracking GE adoption and impacts.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122897/original/image-20160517-9491-7ghfva.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Adoption of insect-resistant (Bt) and herbicide-tolerant (Ht) crops in the United States.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx">U.S. Department of Agriculture</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>Leland Glenna</h2>
<p><strong>Associate Professor of Rural Sociology and Science, Technology, and Society, Pennsylvania State University</strong></p>
<p>There are several valuable insights in this report. It avoids making simplistic and authoritative pronouncements about GE crop technologies. People should avoid viewing GE crops as a single thing that is either beneficial or harmful. </p>
<p>Herbicide-resistant, insect-resistant and virus-resistant crops, for example, are three very different technologies and have had different social, economic and environmental impacts. New and emerging technologies and applications, such as <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-the-disruptor-1.17673">CRISPR-Cas9</a>, add further nuance and complexity. </p>
<p>As a sociologist, I think the report’s most important finding is that the social and economic effects of GE crops will vary by the type of GE crop developed, the economic and environmental contexts of the farms that adopt them, and the social and economic contexts. For example, studies show that benefits to small-scale farmers in developing countries from planting <em>Bt</em> (insect-resistant) cotton <a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/8#183">have varied widely</a>, depending on factors including seed prices, availability of credit and farmers’ access to markets. </p>
<p>It is very important to avoid thinking about GE crop controversies as two groups of people pitted against each other – one group in favor, the other against – or that GE crops are either good or bad. Many perspectives are relevant, and GE crop technologies are complex and varied. </p>
<p>These technologies and applications are changing very quickly, and I found myself hustling to comprehend those changes as a participant in this study. But I learned something more profound in the process. New knowledge emerges when people from different disciplines and subdisciplines exchange their research and expertise in an engaging and constructive way. The <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/category/pastevents/public-meetings/">public presentations and public comments</a> that the National Academy organized in connection with this report stimulated our research and discussions. As a result, the report represents something more than the sum of its parts. </p>
<p>I sincerely hope that this study expands the conversation beyond technological determinism and the tired, old, two-sides-to-every-argument approach to discussing GE crops. It is common for GE crops to be portrayed either as solutions to social and economic problems or as causes of them. GE crops are also commonly presented as though there were only two sides to this debate: either you are for it or against it. </p>
<p>New technologies bring both promises and perils, and aspects that are promising to some people are perilous to others. The report makes it very clear that assessing the experiences of and prospects for GE crops is about more than merely evaluating technical risks. Legal, economic, social, cultural and individual factors are also relevant. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122895/original/image-20160517-9476-18q12b0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protest against GE Crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/infomatique/17910597440/in/photolist-9U1cDu-6WEnKJ-tznDmP-thQc5M-thGwiJ-sCs7ZP-tzhGug-tzhE3H-sCgzFs-twWNFN-tznsPM-thFqMU-thGuC9-thFkqw-tyZ2aA-thGyxd-tzhEhF-thQ5Wz-tyYUX5-twWNrQ-etSuxf-etPeEz-etPmN2-gKx6Kk-thFrMu-7TXhXi-etSBLo-6kUJaL-etSAyC-92uJmR-quKZPq-8RXn3m-gKw5LR-9FQtS6-9FQukH-rnpyxQ-YvDZU-CgscWj-tzny4V-tzhz2R-thGxxY-tznAPe-tyYWey-tznwYZ-thGwJJ-thQ1or-thGzRq-tznz1z-tyWYHj-x1xptS">William Murphy/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>Michael A. Gallo</h2>
<p><strong>Emeritus Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Rutgers University</strong></p>
<p>As a toxicologist, my major concerns with respect to GE crops are impacts on human and animal health. We reviewed approximately 400 to 500 studies, starting from before genetically modified organisms were commercialized. Our general conclusion was that the GE crops tested were no more harmful than non-GE versions.</p>
<p>Many of these studies evaluated animals through their lives and then did <a href="https://www.rcpath.org/discover-pathology/i-want-a-career-studying/human-tissue/histopathology-careers.html">histopathology</a> and clinical chemistry workups on most of the animals’ organs. In almost every case, the range of changes they found, in animals fed GE and non-GE foods, were within normal ranges. Studies done on pigs were especially interesting because pigs are physiologically similar to humans in many ways. Many studies have been done, but they have not found significant differences between pigs fed GE and non-GE foods.</p>
<p>We also reviewed numerous human health studies. For example, we looked for associations between GE crops and the incidence of various types of cancer by reviewing epidemiological studies that were conducted by the National Institutes of Health. There is no obvious correlation or association between cancer incidence and the introduction of GE crops in the United States. </p>
<p>To look for connections with digestive diseases, especially <a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/celiac-disease/basics/definition/con-20030410">celiac</a> – an immune reaction to eating gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley and rye – we consulted a large database at the Mayo Clinic. Celiac disease is on the rise in the United States, but again, we found no discernible connection with the introduction of GE foods. It’s <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27339919">also on the rise in the United Kingdom</a>, where people do not typically eat GE foods.</p>
<p>We recommend more public funding for follow-up studies in areas where early studies produced ambiguous results. This is often an issue in studies where the sample sizes are relatively small. We need public support to develop better toxicological methods in general, for both GE and non-GE foods. Our approach should be that if a food is novel, you test it. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/11#322">That’s how Canada regulates food</a>, and it’s the approach that this report recommends. Test the product, not the process that created it.</p>
<p>I would like to see this report move the discussion away from polemics. It’s a living document. People should look at the <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/">website</a> and <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2014/06/15/provide-comments/">contribute their ideas.</a> Let’s have a discussion about these issues.</p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59289/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Kareiva has received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Science Foundation. He is currently senior science advisor to the President of The Nature Conservancy, in addition to his faculty appointment at UCLA. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leland Glenna has received funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Africa Rice Center.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael A. Gallo has received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health.</span></em></p>Are genetically engineered crops safe for human health and the environment? A new report says yes but points out problems and regulatory gaps. Three members of the study panel offer their takeaways.Peter Kareiva, Director, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los AngelesLeland Glenna, Associate Professor of Rural Sociology and Science, Technology, and Society, Penn StateMichael A. Gallo, Emeritus Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/562562016-04-04T13:47:36Z2016-04-04T13:47:36ZAll our food is ‘genetically modified’ in some way – where do you draw the line?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116953/original/image-20160331-28451-gq905k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pixeljoy / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the past week you’ve probably eaten crops that wouldn’t exist in nature, or that have evolved extra genes to reach freakish sizes. You’ve probably eaten “cloned” food and you may have even eaten plants whose ancestors were once deliberately blasted with radiation. And you could have bought all this without leaving the “organic” section of your local supermarket.</p>
<p>Anti-GM dogma is obscuring the real debate over what level of genetic manipulation society deems acceptable. Genetically-modified food is often regarded as something you’re either for or against, with no real middle ground. </p>
<p>Yet it is misleading to consider GM technology a binary decision, and blanket bans like those in <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/">many European countries</a> are only likely to further stifle debate. After all, very little of our food is truly “natural” and even the most basic crops are the result of some form of human manipulation. </p>
<p>Between organic foods and <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/glowing-plants-spark-debate-1.13131">tobacco engineered to glow in the dark</a> lie a broad spectrum of “modifications” worthy of consideration. All of these different technologies are sometimes lumped together under “GM”. But where would you draw the line?</p>
<h2>1. (Un)natural selection</h2>
<p>Think of carrots, corn or watermelons – all foods you might eat without much consideration. Yet when compared to their wild ancestors, even the “organic” varieties are <a href="http://ediblebajaarizona.com/what-the-ancestors-ate">almost unrecognisable</a>. </p>
<p>Domestication generally involves selecting for beneficial traits, such as high yield. Over time, many generations of selection can substantially alter a plant’s genetic makeup. Man-made selection is capable of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-fruit-vegetables-look-like-Researchers-banana-watermelon-changed-dramatically-ancestors-ate-them.html">generating forms</a> that are extremely unlikely to occur in nature.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Modern watermelons (right) look very different to their 17th-century ancestors (left).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/giovanni-stanchi-watermelons-peaches-pears-a-5765893-details.aspx;%20https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watermelon_slices_BNC.jpg">Christies/Prathyush Thomas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Genome duplications</h2>
<p>Unknowing selection by our ancestors also involved a genetic process we only discovered relatively recently. Whereas humans have half a set of chromosomes (structures that package and organise your genetic information) from each parent, some organisms can have two or more complete duplicate sets of chromosomes. This “polyploidy” is widespread in plants and often <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-being-polyploid-1554633">results in exaggerated traits</a> such as fruit size, thought to be the result of multiple gene copies.</p>
<p>Without realising, many crops have been unintentionally bred to a higher level of ploidy (entirely naturally) as things like large fruit or vigorous growth are often desirable. Ginger and apples are triploid for example, while potatoes and cabbage are tetraploid. Some strawberry varieties are even <a href="http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/12/3295.full">octoploid</a>, meaning they have eight sets of chromosomes compared to just two in humans.</p>
<h2>3. Plant cloning</h2>
<p>It’s a word that tends to conjure up some discomfort – no one really wants to eat “cloned” food. Yet <a href="http://agridr.in/tnauEAgri/eagri50/GBPR211/lec24.pdf">asexual reproduction</a> is the core strategy for many plants in nature, and farmers have utilised it for centuries to perfect their crops.</p>
<p>Once a plant with desirable characteristics is found – a particularly tasty and durable banana, for instance – cloning allows us to grow identical replicates. This could be entirely natural with a cutting or runner, or artificially-induced with plant hormones. Domestic bananas have long since lost the seeds that allowed their wild ancestors to reproduce – if you eat a banana today, <a href="http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/bananas-are-clones-from-the-stone-age/">you’re eating a clone</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Each banana plant is a genetic clone of a previous generation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/design-dog/1249337589">Ian Ransley</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Induced mutations</h2>
<p>Selection – both human and natural – operates on genetic variation within a species. If a trait or characteristic never occurs, then it cannot be selected for. In order to generate greater variation for conventional breeding, scientists in the 1920s began to <a href="https://www.biofortified.org/2010/07/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-induced-mutations-in-crop-breeding/">expose seeds to chemicals or radiation</a>. </p>
<p>Unlike more modern GM technologies, this “<a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0956e/i0956e00.htm">mutational breeding</a>” is largely untargeted and generates mutations at random. Most will be useless, but some will be desirable. More than 1,800 cultivars of crop and ornamental plants including varieties of wheat, rice, cotton and peanuts have been developed and released in more than 50 countries. Mutational breeding is credited for <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1004162323428">spurring the “green revolution”</a> in the 20th century.</p>
<p>Many common foods such as <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/05/pasta-ruby-grapefruits-why-organic-devotees-love-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/">red grapefruits and varieties of pasta wheat</a> are a result of this approach and, surprisingly, these can still be sold as certified “organic”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Golden Promise’, a mutant barley made with radiation, is used in some premium whiskeys.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chetty Thomas/shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5. GM screening</h2>
<p>GM technology doesn’t have to involve any direct manipulation of plants or species. It can be instead used to screen for traits such as disease susceptibility or to identify which “natural” cross is likely to produce the greatest yield or best outcome.</p>
<p>Genetic technology has allowed researchers to identify in advance which ash trees are likely <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12167224/New-hope-for-tackling-ash-dieback-as-researchers-claim-charcoal-treatment-makes-trees-more-resilient.html">to be susceptible to ash dieback disease</a>, for instance. Future forests could be grown from these resistant trees. We might call this “genomics-informed” human selection.</p>
<h2>6. Cisgenic and transgenic</h2>
<p>This is what most people mean when they refer to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – genes being artificially inserted into a different plant to improve yield, tolerance to heat or drought, to produce better drugs or even to add a vitamin. Under conventional breeding, such changes might take decades. Added genes provide a shortcut.</p>
<p>Cisgenic simply means the gene inserted (or moved, or duplicated) comes from the same or a very closely related species. Inserting genes from unrelated species (transgenic) is substantially more challenging – this is the only technique in our spectrum of GM technology that can produce an organism that could not occur naturally. Yet the case for it might still be compelling.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Campaigns like these are aimed at cis- and transgenic crops. But what about the other forms of GM food?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/65421715@N02/6262784640/">Alexis Baden-Mayer</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since the 1990s several crops have been engineered with a gene from the soil bacteria <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em>. This bacteria gives “<a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/use-and-impact-of-bt-maize-46975413">Bt corn</a>” and other engineered crops resistance to certain pests, and acts as an appealing alternative to pesticide use. </p>
<p>This technology remains <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/">the most controversial</a> as there are concerns that resistance genes could “escape” and jump to other species, or be unfit for human consumption. While unlikely – many <a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gmo-escape-20150121-story.html">fail safe approaches</a> are designed to prevent this – it is of course possible. </p>
<h2>Where do you stand?</h2>
<p>All of these methods continue to be used. Even transgenic crops are now widely cultivated around the world, and have been for more than a decade. They are closely scrutinised and rightly so, but the promise of this technology means that it surely deserves improved scientific literacy among the public if it is to reach it’s full potential. </p>
<p>And let’s be clear, with global population set to hit nine billion by 2050 and the increasingly greater strain on the environment, GMOs have the potential to improve health, increase yields and reduce our impact. However uncomfortable they might make us, they deserve a sensible and informed debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56256/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Borrell is currently a NERC funded PhD student.</span></em></p>Everything from domesticated carrots to glow-in-the-dark tobacco fits somewhere on the spectrum. ‘Banning GM’ isn’t a simple yes-no decision.James Borrell, PhD researcher in Conservation Genetics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/544422016-02-11T10:01:21Z2016-02-11T10:01:21ZWhy we won’t be able to feed the world without GM<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110854/original/image-20160209-12606-13ekzgp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We're talking about a lot of seeds</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=feed%20the%20world&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=44069140">Great Divide Photography</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One thing I remember vividly from my childhood is The Day of the Triffids. In John Wyndham’s apocalyptic novel, the triffids were carnivorous plants that didn’t need roots and had developed three legs to allow them to find prey (whose nitrogen they fed on instead). They were originally bred by humans to provide high-quality vegetable oil, since the growing population’s demand for food was outstripping supply. Initially contained on farms, the triffids escaped following an “extreme celestial event” and began to terrorise the human population. </p>
<p>Replace “breeding” with “genetic modification” and you have the contemporary cautionary tale about the threat of “Frankenfoods” to human health and the environment. But this raises another question – if we ignore their potential, what does it mean for human food requirements in the future?</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110860/original/image-20160209-12610-wmrcxz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leaf grief.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Day of the Triffids was first published in 1951, right at the start of the “<a href="http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm">green revolution</a>”. The latest thing was breeding new varieties of cereal which were high-yielding. Together with other newly developed technologies including machinery – tractors and irrigation pumps – and synthetic inputs like pesticides and fertilisers, this <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11584298">helped double</a> major commodity crop production between 1960 and 2000 to 2 billion tonnes worldwide, rebutting <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/11374623">Malthusian</a> fears about the world failing to feed its growing population. </p>
<p>In the last decade, the rosy glow has worn off a little. Growth in world crop yields <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2296">has declined</a> and is even stagnating, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/616">perhaps due to</a> climate change – especially stress from heat and drought. Yields <a href="http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ncomms3918">are no longer</a> increasing fast enough to keep pace with projected demand. If current trends continue, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066428">we’ll need to</a> expand our crop land by 42% by 2050. As a consequence, forests will be lost. Along with associated costs from requiring more water, plus the effects on biodiversity, this <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">will increase</a> agriculture’s greenhouse-gas emissions significantly. In total, agri-food <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">is set to</a> emit enough greenhouse gases to surpass the entirety of the 1.5°C temperature-rise target <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21/">called for in Paris</a> for 2050. </p>
<h2>Supply …</h2>
<p>There are basically two options: we can increase yields to meet demand without expanding area, and/or we can reduce demand enough to allow supply to catch up. Increasing supply in a sustainable way is perfectly possible. Some of this is about increasing efficiency through better farming, such as using <a href="https://soilsmatter.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/what-is-precision-agriculture-and-why-is-it-important/">precision agriculture</a> to target the right amounts of fertilisers and pesticides to the right places. </p>
<p>Some of it is about changing land management to get the most out of agricultural land while maintaining ecosystem services, for example by managing the edges of fields as buffer strips to prevent chemicals being washed away by heavy rains; and as <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00004.x/full">places with lots of wild flowers</a> where bees can thrive to improve crop pollination. And some of it is about developing new animal and plant varieties that are more efficient, more productive or better able to cope with the changing environment.</p>
<p>New varieties can come about from various means. Conventional breeding continues to be important. But modern laboratories have given us more strings to our bow. Not all biotechnological approaches are genetic modification in the legal sense. Using chemicals or X-rays to create genetic variation has <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/05/pasta-ruby-grapefruits-why-organic-devotees-love-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/">long been</a> a mainstay of “conventional breeding”, for example. Other techniques – such as <a href="http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/crispr-a-game-changing-genetic-engineering-technique/">CRISPR</a> – are arguably post-GM, in that they can involve the clinical editing of single genes without leaving a signature of foreign DNA. CRISPR <a href="https://www.jic.ac.uk/news/2015/11/crispr-crop-genes-no-transgenes/#">can produce</a> identical plants to those produced conventionally, but much faster. Yet for some people, biotechnological crop or livestock modification conjures up “triffidophobia”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110863/original/image-20160209-12571-10asr0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chop chop.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=Pn9wL9qjtP2ie2RbShav7A&searchterm=CRISPR&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=353873630">Mopic</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just how wary should we be about new technologies? Conventional breeding has served us well, but can’t keep up with demand or the speed with which the weather is changing. Any change in farming practice has associated risks that need to be assessed and managed, but these also need to be weighed against the risks of doing nothing. To increase food supply to meet projected demand, farming in the same way as we do now, the emissions from deforestation and other changes will <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">lock us into</a> a world of 4-5°C of climate change. Together with other significant costs to the environment and human health and well-being, that’s probably a greater risk than the alternative. </p>
<p>It is difficult to guess how much biotechnological approaches will contribute to the solution, though. We still need to develop precision agriculture and smarter land use. And even if the gaps between current and required yields are halved – a big ask across the world – we’ll still need more land to meet demand. This would still impact on the likes of our water supply <a href="http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/importance-food-demand-management-climate-mitigation">and create</a> enough warming to challenge the Paris targets. </p>
<h2>… or demand?</h2>
<p>This is where the second option comes in – decreasing demand. <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1104-5">Globally</a>, we feed livestock about a third of all the calories we grow – enough to feed all the people in Asia. About a third of the food we grow is also lost or wasted. And across the world, many people overeat enough to make themselves ill through obesity, diabetes and so on. If we made wiser purchasing and consumption decisions, potentially we could halve current global demand for food. That would create space for sustainably feeding the growing population as well as growing biofuels and carbon storage in new forests.</p>
<p>For me, the message is clear. We are unsustainably using the planet’s resources to produce the food we demand, and there will be very negative results if we continue on the same trajectory. New technology can help, but needs assessed as it is developed. Old technology still has a role; as does reducing waste, over-consumption and meat-heavy diets. There is no simple answer but there is a toolbox, and we’ll need every tool at our disposal to address the challenge we created. Our technology won’t produce The Day of the Triffids, but without it, we may create a future Apocalypse Now.</p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Benton receives funding from NERC, BBSRC, ESPA and the EU. He is also the Champion of the UK's Global Food Security programme. </span></em></p>The concerns about genetically modified foods are well known. But when we look at population and climate projections, what happens if we don’t use them to increase our food supply?Tim Benton, Professor of Population Ecology, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/527152016-01-08T13:43:09Z2016-01-08T13:43:09ZGM foods: big biotech is quietly winning the war<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107169/original/image-20160104-28997-amiycq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A rush and a push and the land is ours ...</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=1GRT-yNpLhTTVFK9Vr-ilA&searchterm=winning%20war&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=340682912">Memmore</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It must have been 1996 or 1997 when I first met someone from Monsanto. The anti-GM movement in the UK had by then already acquired some momentum and Monsanto was cast as the <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/1997/12/15/the-monsanto-monster/">prime villain</a> for seeking to import GM soya into Europe, though other seed producers were receiving similar treatment. I asked my contact why Monsanto allowed itself to be castigated in such a way. “It never occurred to us that anybody would be interested in plant breeding,” he replied. “They never had been in the past.” </p>
<p>Though hindsight is a wonderful thing, the industry should maybe not have been so surprised at the opposition when it <a href="https://theconversation.com/seeds-of-doubt-why-consumers-weigh-up-gm-produce-and-turn-it-down-50106">began to market</a> its insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops in the mid-1990s. Some readers might recall <a href="https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Bacterial_nucleation_in_pseudomonas_syringae">efforts in the mid-1980s</a> to delete a gene that made plants more susceptible to frost damage, which led to the development of “Ice Minus” bacteria. The <a href="http://modernfarmer.com/2014/05/even-first-gmo-field-tests-controversial-will-ever-end-fight/">spectacle of</a> scientists in moon suits spraying Ice Minus on strawberry and potato plants in California made global headlines. Despite the fact that the bacteria did improve the plants’ protection against frost, long legal battles with opponents concerned about the effects on the environment were one of the main reasons the project was abandoned. </p>
<h2>The rise of environmentalism</h2>
<p>You can trace the anti-GM movement to two things. First, increasing disillusion, especially in Europe, with the progress of left-wing ideologies in the former Soviet Union and its allies. And second, a growing awareness of environmental problems in the years following the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s landmark attack on synthetic pesticides, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/dec/07/why-rachel-carson-is-a-saint">Silent Spring</a>. These created a breeding ground in which movements like anti-GM could flourish: as the socialist cause faded, environmentalism began to take its place. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107170/original/image-20160104-28985-1xqrn0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov/15011159418/in/photolist-oSu7Hq-5jwyYt-4DTVS2-6cRtyK-6cVBFm-9veNn9-6bEuaB-bachxH-iym7DN-h6NjWR-7oqAg8-eaGpGa-eaN3F3-eaN3BE-MFm45-4Kier9-c65jTW-5RxkRb-69rVmD-bF6VGg-dgdX68-67TovS-wu7wzZ-qzUe6P-qUWaNU-74gEJE-rcwaYg-qUW9Zj-eeJRYT-8K4ijo-9u85ns-9u84VY-9u54ZD-9u53F2-9u55wc-9u55SF-5JHHuo-as9mMP-6dxBMK-6Fkuod-7WJfjG-qfHmjT-bpWRVF-62Yt1W-4TNR5U-4TJBzR-4TNPdf-9gpSyK-pwQrd5-ehaHHv">USEPPA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Helping this along were scores of green politicians who saw political advantage in adopting postures which could frighten the population with threats to their food, and commercial interests such as the organic food industry which may have seen GM as a threat to their own brands and market shares – although it didn’t explain its opposition in that way. </p>
<p>This was the potential maelstrom into which agribiotech companies launched their first projects. The objections erupted primarily in Europe, reaching the US only ten years later (in the form of opponents seeking local GM bans and a <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling/us-polls-on-ge-food-labeling">nationwide campaign</a> for GM labelling). Yet even in Europe, the opposition was far from universal in the early days. Between 1995 and 1997, for example, GM tomato purée <a href="https://theconversation.com/whatever-happened-to-bans-on-gm-produce-in-british-supermarkets-51153">was sold</a> in two UK supermarket chains without incident. </p>
<p>It was only in 1997 when the anti-GM row really got going over the import of GM soya into Europe. At the time, some environmental pressure groups were in need of a new vehicle through which to channel protest – for example Greenpeace <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/greenpeaces-brent-spar-apology-1599647.html">had backtracked and apologised</a> for publicising a seriously mistaken estimate of the amount of oil left onboard the Brent Spar storage buoy. Accordingly, these organisations adopted a vigorous and at times violent opposition to all things GM, including imports and, above all, their cultivation on European soil. They frightened enough people to create a public outcry. The media became largely anti-GM, in Europe at least. Retailers <a href="https://theconversation.com/whatever-happened-to-bans-on-gm-produce-in-british-supermarkets-51153">began to</a> remove GM products from their shelves, although their approach was far from coherent. The seed producers battled on but to little effect.</p>
<h2>In from the cold</h2>
<p>Fast-forward 15 years and the environment has improved somewhat for GM in Europe. The UK media, for instance, now <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/13/gm-crops-environment-study">tends to be</a> more in favour than against. There is more pro-GM media coverage than there once was even in Germany, a country still generally more determinedly opposed than England (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958">Scotland</a>, <a href="http://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/wales-bans-gm-crops-to-protect-organic-farming.htm">Wales</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34316778">Northern Ireland</a> also take a more anti-approach). </p>
<p>Supermarket opposition has softened in the UK, too. Recent changes to EU rules <a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-an-uneasy-truce-hangs-over-europe-48835">have made</a> GM crop cultivation more likely in a handful of countries, including England, the Czech Republic, Romania and Spain. My sense is that much of the European public has become bored with the issue, even in countries whose governments remain opposed. GM is meanwhile <a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-and-the-developing-world-opposing-sides-miss-the-bigger-picture-50479">very successful</a> in the Americas and parts of Asia and Australia, while growing perceptibly in Africa. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107171/original/image-20160104-29003-wu9wr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Put a GM sock in it.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=Y9MXZdeIbCUFsBZnytGNXQ&searchterm=public%20bored&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=262932707">Jane0606</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Through all of this, the major agribiotech companies have focused on quietly selling themselves to people prepared to listen, and publishing various accounts of their technical and scientific advances. In Europe, they work with the industry group <a href="http://www.europabio.org">EuropaBio</a> to represent their interests in the corridors and conference centres of the EU. In the past few years, the industry seems essentially to have given up on cultivating GM crops in the European countries where it is not welcome, focusing instead on the places that want the technology. But it is keen to maintain imports into Europe of GM products, particularly animal feedstuffs, which are widely used. </p>
<p>Agribiotech no doubt did make mistakes in the early days of GM by failing to anticipate the strength of the opposition. But maybe the need to commercialise the products made this unavoidable. Certainly the industry remains unpopular in some quarters: Monsanto in particular is still seen by activist protesters as a large and visible target. But whether the general public subscribes to such views, or ever really did, is much less certain. Ultimately that is the only thing that matters, even if there is still some way to go to persuade everyone yet. </p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52715/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prof Moses is Chairman of CropGen, a public information organisation in the UK originally supported by the agricultural biotechnology industry. He consults to the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, and has received funding from the EU as coordinator of three projects to explore the public understanding of and consumer attitudes to agricultural biotechnology in a number of countries in the EU and elsewhere.</span></em></p>Monsanto an other biotech companies got caught short in the 1990s. But since then, the GM argument has been moving in their direction.Vivian Moses, Visiting Professor of Biotechnology, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/513182015-12-08T19:08:34Z2015-12-08T19:08:34ZGM crops can benefit organic farmers too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104785/original/image-20151208-3139-cekgah.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically modified soybeans.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Bogdan Cristel</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you eaten organic food today? If you have eaten anything, then technically you’ve eaten organic. By definition, all food is organic, it just may not have been grown under industry standards, such as Australian Certified Organic (<a href="http://aco.net.au/">ACO</a>).</p>
<p>Most people who choose to eat certified organic do so because they believe it is cleaner and greener, or chemical free. But the most modern cultivated plants are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and so are precluded from being certified organic.</p>
<p>The Australian Organic organisation <a href="http://austorganic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Consumer_Standards_Final_21.pdf">says</a> that’s because there are no long-term studies on human health. </p>
<p>Prince Charles <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3349308/Prince-Charles-warns-GM-crops-risk-causing-the-biggest-ever-environmental-disaster.html">has warned</a> that the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops is the biggest environmental disaster of all time.</p>
<p>The Australian Greens <a href="http://greens.org.au/GMO">argue that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] genetically modified foods have still not been proven safe […] Crop yields have not increased, but the use of pesticides on our food has. The only ones profiting from GM are the large GM companies.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>But the research says different</h2>
<p>Perhaps the Greens need to brush up on the science behind their claims. In the most comprehensive meta-analysis (of 147 publications) to date, researchers from Goettingen University <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25365303">have concluded</a> that the adoption of GM technology has:</p>
<ul>
<li>Reduced pesticide use by 37%</li>
<li>Increased crop yield by 22%</li>
<li>Increased farmer profits by 68%.</li>
</ul>
<p>The yield and profit gains are considerably higher in developing countries than in developed countries, and 53% of GM crops are grown in developing countries. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas_Piggott/publication/237717600_THE_NET_BENEFITS_INCLUDING_CONVENIENCE_OF_ROUNDUP_READY_SOYBEANS_RESULTS_FROM_A_NATIONAL_SURVEY/links/5410fc760cf2df04e75d6c58.pdf">survey</a> in the United States uncovered great difference in motivation among farmers who adopted GM herbicide-resistant soybean. Farmers like the no-till and low chemical use attributes. Even when it did not increase profitability, they enjoyed the increase in farm safety and particularly the safety of their families when using less herbicide with very low toxicity.</p>
<p>A similar <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006.x/abstract">study</a> of the same soybeans in Argentina showed that total productivity increased by 10%, and more than half of the benefit had gone to the consumer.</p>
<p>In 2012, a joint Chinese-French <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11153.html">study</a> on GM cotton showed that insecticide usage more than halved, and the survival of beneficial insects had a positive impact on pest control. Since they adopted genetically modified <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bt_cotton">Bt cotton</a>, India has been producing twice as much cotton from the same land area with 65% less insecticide.</p>
<h2>What do organic farmers really want?</h2>
<p>Organic farmers really do care for their land and want to balance their impact on the land with producing healthier foods and improving the health of the soil. </p>
<p>But organic farms use <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html">more land and labour</a> to produce the same amount of produce as conventional agriculture. That’s the major reason you <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/we-plough-millions-into-expensive-organic-food/story-fnagkbpv-1226578226483">pay more</a> for organic products. </p>
<p>Organic farmers will maintain that if you can improve soil health, you can reduce the impact of pests and diseases. In fact, most farmers in Australia will say that, organic or not. </p>
<p>It works for some of the soil-borne problems but, not surprisingly, weeds really like healthy soils too. And fungal spores, plant-eating insects and aphids harbouring pathogenic viruses can and will travel a long way to get a piece of those healthy plants.</p>
<p>With all crop production, there is an element of biological warfare. No matter how hard any farmer tries, her crop will often need a little help to fight back.</p>
<h2>All farmers use some ‘inputs’</h2>
<p>So reluctantly, there will come a time when a farmer will have to use chemicals, or allowed “inputs” (remember that organic agriculture is chemical-free). They include things such as copper, rotenone, acetic acid, light petroleum derivatives, sodium chloride, boric acid and sulfur. </p>
<p>Different organic certifiers allow different “inputs”. Let’s use the case of the potato, which infamously succumbed to potato blight and precipitated the great Irish diaspora of the 19th century. </p>
<p>Potato blight is still around and organic potatoes succumb just like others, so farmers are allowed to apply copper sprays to control the fungus. After repeated applications, some soils accumulated toxic levels of copper, hence in 2001 the European Union (EU) and Australian organic certifiers limited application to 8kg/ha annually. </p>
<p>In 2006, the EU dropped this to 6kg/ha, and subsequently Germany and Switzerland cut further to 3-4kg/ha while Scandinavian countries banned the use of copper in agriculture, organic or conventional. Organic potato yields remain at 50% that of conventional yields.</p>
<p>In 2011, BASF launched a potato (Fortuna) that was totally <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2a1906dc-98f7-11e3-a32f-00144feab7de.html">resistant to potato late blight</a>, and it could be cultivated without the need for fungicidal sprays, including copper. The potato contained two genes from a wild Mexican potato relative, and except for the fact that it was a GMO, it would be perfect as a clean and green organic potato crop. </p>
<p>Sadly, European agriculture <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21294487">rejected</a> Fortuna potatoes.</p>
<h2>Reduced emissions</h2>
<p>There can be other benefits in GM crops, beyond yield and resistance. Rice produces 10% of the world’s methane emissions so imagine if somebody could reduce emissions by 90%, and make plants with larger seeds containing more energy. </p>
<p>Chuangxin Sun’s group at Swedish Agricultural University has done <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/full/nature14673.html">precisely that</a> by transferring a single gene from barley to rice.</p>
<p>If all the world’s rice used this technology, it would be the equivalent of closing down 150 coal-fired power stations or removing 120 million cars from the road annually.</p>
<p>With many other plant scientists, I propose that the case-by-case scrutiny of GM crops would allow the organic industry to show it is willing to use the smartest technologies for improving the sustainable productivity of food and fibre production.</p>
<p>Many labs around the world, including those in my building, are full of bright young innovative scientists who want to make the world cleaner and greener. </p>
<p>We have GM crop plants with enhanced nutritional qualities, pest and disease resistance, larger grain sizes and the ability to produce more food with lower fertiliser inputs. Many of these plants have been modified with only a few DNA letters altered from the “wild” genes. </p>
<p>Adoption would massively improve the productivity of organic agriculture, and the productivity boost would help make organic food price competitive. So let’s talk about GM organics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51318/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Godwin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Grains R&D Corporation, Rural Industries R&D Corporation, Qld Government, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
In addition he has previously received funding from a seed company Advanta Seeds as part of ARC Linkage grants. He was once awarded an ARC Linkage grant with BASF as industrial partner to produce starch polymers for industrial use but after a change in personnel, BASF withdrew from the grant, hence $0 was received. In the past he has received research funding from the OECD, SIDA (Swedish AID), AusAID, Sugar Research Australia, Dairy Innovation Australia, SEQ Council of Mayors, CSIRO and DAAD (German International Academic Exchange).
He is a current member of the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Department of Health.</span></em></p>Scientists are developing GM crops that don’t need pesticides and other chemicals to help them grow. Isn’t that what organic farmers want too?Ian Godwin, Professor in Plant Molecular Genetics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/511532015-11-26T15:42:23Z2015-11-26T15:42:23ZWhatever happened to ‘bans’ on GM produce in British supermarkets?<p>Once upon a time, UK retailers welcomed genetically modified (GM) foods. In the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_4647000/4647390.stm">late 1990s</a>, Sainsbury’s and Safeway (since <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3542291.stm">purchased by</a> Morrisons) both offered GM tomato purée, which so far as I recall was the first such product made available in the UK. GM and non-GM cans of purée stood side by side on their shelves, the former <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/gmcr.18041#.VlWJHryoKu4">some 18% cheaper</a> per unit weight. The cans were conspicuously labelled and pamphlets explaining what GM was all about were to hand nearby. But when the stock ran out and it was time to re-order, the anti-GM food balloon had gone up and the product was discontinued.</p>
<p>The late 1990s and early 2000s in Britain was a period of intense back-and forth argument about GM. In 1999 Marks & Spencer <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/M%26S+BANS+GM+FOODS.-a060402770">announced that</a> it was removing all GM foods from its shelves. (In a House of Lords inquiry at that time, M&S said their customers demanded it. When asked by their lordships how many customers that meant, it turned out to have been rather a small percentage. But those who positively wanted GM were, it seems, even fewer in number). </p>
<p>Sainsbury’s, then the second-largest chain in the UK after Tesco, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/298229.stm">responded</a> only weeks later by saying it would guarantee that all of its own-brand products were GM-free. All the other retailers followed suit: the UK’s retail industry was to be GM-free – or was it?</p>
<p>In fact some GM products, though not many, were always to be found. Until 2004, when GM labelling became mandatory under <a href="http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labelling/93.new_labelling_laws_gm_products_eu.html">EU regulations</a>, it was difficult to identify them. With a label prescribed by law it obviously became easier, and every now and again, a variety of minor products turned up in this or that supermarket chain but did not last very long. </p>
<p>Yet one product which was always on sale, unlabelled before 2004 but properly indicating its GM source thereafter, was soya cooking oil. It can still be found – I spotted it in one of my local Sainsbury’s stores just a few weeks ago. The distributors told me some years ago that the advent of labelling had had no effect on sales. When I questioned a small shopkeeper selling the product, he had no idea that what he was selling was GM (“What’s that?”). Nor, it seems, had his customers.</p>
<h2>Feed fad</h2>
<p>Then there is the question of GM fodder for animals. Around the time of their own-brand GM-free commitments, retailers said that they would not sell any products from pigs or poultry that had been exposed to GM feeds. </p>
<p>This ban became a distinct red line that remained in place for a decade or so. Until, that is, when Asda became the first of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/7852762/Supermarkets-selling-meat-from-animals-fed-GM-crops.html">the leading</a> UK supermarkets <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article329472.ece">to abandon</a> its commitment to eggs and poultry fed with GM in 2010. This greatly upset anti-GM campaigning groups, <a href="http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/33/">who demanded</a> that Asda and other supermarkets “respond to public opinion” (as the anti-GM brigade saw it) by pledging to keep GM out of the nation’s meat and dairy. </p>
<p>But by then public opinion on the issue had become almost completely mute so far as I could see. So in 2012, Morrison’s <a href="http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/channels/supermarkets/morrisons/morrisons-gambles-on-gm-chicken-feed-shift/227510.article">did the same</a>: in neither case, as far as I am aware, was there any perceptible consumer reaction. By 2013, all the remaining UK supermarket chains, except Waitrose, <a href="http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/buying-and-supplying/categories/fresh/sainsburys-ms-and-the-co-op-follow-tescos-lead-on-gm-feed/238400.article">had followed suit</a>: GM-feed for pigs and poultry was no longer to be excluded. One or two newspapers noted this at the time but, once more, there appears to have been no noticeable consumer rejection of products from animals fed GM.</p>
<h2>Where we go from here</h2>
<p>And that is (almost) it. In 2014 it was <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826108/Frankenstein-foods-slip-M-S-Anger-store-puts-GM-food-shelves-despite-opposed-engineered-products.html">reported that</a>, while Marks & Spencer still doesn’t use GM ingredients in its own-label products, it sold products from other brands which did contain GM soya or corn – these included teriyaki, ginger and hibachi sauces from the US brand TonTon and three flavours of Moravian Cookie. I checked at the time and found all of them were indeed on sale. Apart from own-brand, of course, GM ingredients can be found across the board in food products and should indeed be labelled as such. </p>
<p>That just leaves cotton – in clothing not in food. Some people have estimated that more than half the world’s cotton <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5A1ygCQjxeY">is GM</a>, so this is likely to be the case with products on sale in the UK. There is no obligation to label GM cotton so one cannot be sure, but nobody seems to ask and few seem to care. Every now and again, up pops an ad for some cotton product or other which is said to be made with organic cotton (and so <em>ipso facto</em> non-GM) but such examples are rare.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/102841/original/image-20151123-18233-2frjtg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spot the difference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=cotton%20clothing&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=263492549">Eyes Wide</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Though a few stalwarts keep up their anti-GM rhetoric, public interest in this subject has largely waned in my view. UK government policy is now <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/13/gm-crops-to-be-fast-tracked-in-uk-following-eu-vote">openly pro-GM</a>. The devolved governments in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34316778">Northern Ireland</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/scotland-to-issue-formal-ban-on-genetically-modified-crops">Scotland</a> and <a href="http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/02/wales-joins-total-ban-on-gm-crops/">Wales</a> take a different view (as does <a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-an-uneasy-truce-hangs-over-europe-48835">much of Europe</a>), but England has 87% of the UK’s total population. </p>
<p>Though one can never be quite sure, it does begin to look as though the GM issue will fade away in the fullness of time, in England at least, even if it takes a while. I suspect GM food and crops will become commonplace and the protesting community will veer off in another direction, chasing new demons. </p>
<p><em>Postscript</em>:</p>
<p>Having read this article, a colleague told me that he had in May 2015 undertaken a web search for GM-labelled products on sale in UK supermarkets. His list has been rechecked and updated to find that the five major UK supermarket chains are currently describing on their websites about 60 products labelled as containing GM-ingredients. Nine of them are pet foods manufactured in the UK. All the others are human food products apparently imported from North America or Israel. Several are to be found on the websites of more than one supermarket chain.</p>
<p><em>For more coverage of the debate around GM crops, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gm-food">click here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51153/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Prof Moses is Chairman of CropGen, a public information organisation in the UK originally supported by the agricultural biotechnology industry. He consults to the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, and has received funding from the EU as coordinator of three projects to explore the public understanding of and consumer attitudes to agricultural biotechnology in a number of countries in the EU and elsewhere.</span></em></p>Since the heyday of retail bans on products containing genetically modified ingredients 15 years ago, the tide has been heading in the other direction.Vivian Moses, Visiting Professor of Biotechnology, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/487092015-11-06T02:44:56Z2015-11-06T02:44:56ZHow we got to now: why the US and Europe went different ways on GMOs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98569/original/image-20151015-30702-72jvjq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Part of the ongoing debate: some papaya growers in Hawaii have planted a strain that has been genetically modified to resist a virus.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/remembertobreathe/17580233976/in/photolist-rTakd9-sMvi5m-e8uS69">remembertobreathe/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a myth that circulates on both sides of the Atlantic: Americans accepted genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their food supply without question, while the more precautionary Europeans rejected them. But GMOs went through a period of significant controversy in the US during the early years starting in the 1980s. </p>
<p>A boomerang effect is only now being felt in the US, as the last half-decade has seen a rise in consumer concern, state-based initiatives for <a href="https://theconversation.com/study-gm-food-labels-do-not-act-as-a-warning-to-consumers-45283">labeling</a> and the emergence of “GMO-free” claims on a growing number of products marketed in the US.</p>
<p>In Europe, meanwhile, the controversy seems to have never subsided. Earlier this month, half of the European Union’s 28 countries indicated they intend to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/01/half-of-europe-opts-out-of-new-gm-crop-scheme">opt out of a new GM crop plan</a>, apparently over concerns over food safety, in a blow to the biotech industry.</p>
<p>Why have EU and US consumers and policymakers taken such different routes? A look at the recent history of GMOs helps explain why. </p>
<h2>An uproar over dairy cows</h2>
<p>The first two genetically engineered food products in the US were recombinant chymosin, or rennet (an enzyme used in cheese production), and recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST), a growth hormone used to extend the lactation cycle in dairy cows. Both are produced in a genetically engineered microbe in much the same manner as many drugs. Recombinant rennet was accepted without a whisper in both the US and Europe. Recombinant BST caused an uproar. </p>
<p>It began in 1985 when economists predicted that recombinant BST (rBST) would lead to concentration in the dairy industry. The US dairy industry was already starting to consolidate due to computerized record keeping, herd management and control of milking equipment. Yet there were worries that small dairies across the United States would go bankrupt as the industry transitioned to milking not dozens or hundreds but thousands of cows thanks to the longer lactation cycle. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Touting a rBST-free cheese.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tillamook/4663970660/in/photolist-j9a71c-grLsBx-pfGa5-ne676T-pfBX3-pfB17-pfGXE-pfFCZ-pfFj5-pfEJ4-pfEnM-pfDdN-pfCV1-pfCyS-pfChH-pfBEw-pfBkP-pfDy3-pfGFt-pfGpE-pfFTh-pfF1S-pfAFZ-pfAkv-pfzYj-anuKGE-8794Zf-uSF7rj-6TU51u">tillamook/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>rBST went through an <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a14-collier.htm">extraordinarily long and drawn-out approval process</a> at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and was in fact withheld from the market after it was approved by a highly unusual act of Congress. The <a href="http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm">special review</a> mandated by this act concurred with the FDA’s assessment of safety and further stated that the US government had never before regulated a novel technology in light of predicted socio-economic consequences. The moratorium against rBST was allowed to expire during the early years of the Clinton administration in the early 1990s, allowing rBST to go on the market. </p>
<p>This did not end the controversy, however. There were numerous attempts to promote labels for “rBST-free” milk, especially in New England where people love their small dairies. And in general, there is a tendency for any food-related claim to be regarded as a health claim by a subset of consumers. The FDA judged the rBST-free claim to be misleading since all milk contains BST, and they had already concluded that rBST milk was as safe as regular milk. </p>
<p>The agency was quite aggressive in policing these claims. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was one of the few companies willing to jump through all the hurdles to maintain its “rBST-free” label. The company added disclaimers saying that all milk has BST and that sourcing their milk from non-rBST dairies was found to have no health implications. By the time they added further required language stating that they couldn’t be sure all of their suppliers had done the same thing, the label that satisfied the FDA was a paragraph long. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, agencies in Canada and Europe ruled against rBST on animal health grounds. Inducing higher milk production is accompanied by a statistical increase in the <a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00902768/document">risk of mastitis</a>. </p>
<p>The US, by contrast, was primed for a political environment that was pro-biotechnology and hostile to demands for regulation or labeling on any but the strictest of health-based claims. </p>
<h2>Ethics</h2>
<p>If the larger social context in agriculture was pro-biotech, this was certainly not true for a loose-knit coalition that was to prove its mettle in the years to come. </p>
<p>An almost forgotten document from 1990, <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Biotechnologys-Bitter-Harvest.pdf">Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest</a> laid out a series of complaints. Foremost among them were concerns about small-farm bankruptcies and concentration in agriculture and the tendency for US agricultural research to underfund and ignore more environmentally-friendly alternatives to large-scale monoculture, mechanization and chemical inputs. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Published in 1990, Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest argued that traditional methods, now generally referred to as organic, were better than a heavy reliance on biotech.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The authors of Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest predicted that genetic manipulation would follow this path and they demanded that land-grant universities and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) expand their portfolio to be more accommodating to production methods, which today we associate with organic farming. It is at least arguable that had agricultural research institutions followed this advice, we would not see the extreme alienation and bifurcation between industrial and alternative agriculture that exists today. </p>
<p>There may also have been a brief moment when the biotechnology industry itself could have endorsed such a move. During the early 1990s, the nonprofit Keystone Center facilitated a series of “national conversations” on new genetic technologies, discussing the ethical issues associated with both medical and food applications. I attended one of these sessions and read all the reports. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Resistance to GM foods in the US appears to be building through state-level efforts to label products.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khalidhameedphotos/14115527258/">khalidhameedphotos/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The effort testified to significant and growing dissatisfaction with mainstream agriculture, but the human medical questions were clearly the gorilla in the room. The upshot of these talks was recognition that people want drugs that could be developed by manipulating genes, but saw ethical issues with applications of genetic engineering to the <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/editing-human-germline-cells-sparks-ethics-debate">human germ line</a>. Similar ethical concerns with the manipulation of food crops and especially food animals tapered off. </p>
<p>In any event, although concerns were being expressed, US regulatory agencies were reluctant to base their decisions on factors that are not clearly articulated by Congress in the authorizing legislation. US regulatory decisions can be and regularly are challenged in court. </p>
<p>Although the internal discussions at the USDA, EPA and FDA are not made public, we can presume that legal advisers at these agencies would have urged them to resist the pressure to consider anything but health and environmental impact, narrowly construed. The first genetically engineered crops were approved in the late 1990s, and by 2000 a large percentage of US corn and soybean farmers were growing GMO varieties. </p>
<h2>Safety and regulation</h2>
<p>What about food safety? Understanding this part of the story requires a look at how food is regulated in the US. The FDA has clear authority to regulate additives (like coloring agents or preservatives) and animal drugs (like rBST). Foods themselves, however, are not subject to any mandatory review under US law, and the FDA has long circulated a list of foods and food ingredients that are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Food companies combining items on the GRAS list have a blanket endorsement from FDA that shields them from arbitrary lawsuits that might otherwise be brought under US liability law. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, dating back to the days of the first Bush administration, regulatory agencies had been directed to use existing laws to regulate biotechnology – that is, no mandatory review of GMO foods. This is a decision that remains controversial to this day. The Union of Concerned Scientists and Consumers Union continue to argue for mandatory regulatory review of GMOs.</p>
<p>The FDA eventually announced that it would treat any gene product, such as the protein or active agent produced by a genetic modification, that was not itself from a source on the GRAS list as an additive, giving the agency strong authority over truly novel introductions into food. </p>
<p>But given that it had no authority to require regulatory review, the FDA was in the position of relying upon voluntary action by biotechnology companies to report what genes had been introduced into crops. The case for animals has been different: all genetic modifications are regulated as animal drugs – a difference that may explain why no transgenic animals have yet been approved for food use in the United States. </p>
<p>This approach has subsequently been called “substantial equivalence,” which falls short of a regulatory <em>approval</em> since the FDA only reviews data submitted by companies on the chemical composition of GRAS foods. GMOs do receive formal approval from the US Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, but these agencies are reviewing environmental rather than food safety risk.</p>
<p>The approach has endured in part because nothing has gone wrong (at least nothing we know of) and because the alternative is difficult to define. Natural variation in the chemical composition of virtually all common foods is quite large, which means the use of standard toxicological methods for testing the safety of whole foods is subject to many confounding variables. </p>
<p>Food safety experts are well aware that there are many ways in which ordinary plant breeding can produce unsafe whole foods. This would be especially true for foods such as tomatoes or potatoes, which are known to carry the genes for potent toxins. However, there is no law in the US that would require any whole food to be subjected to any regulatory review. The only protection that keeps toxic plants off the shelves of grocery stores in the US is the professional ethic of plant breeders, reinforced by the fear of a product liability lawsuit.</p>
<p>Indeed, the litigious nature of American society and the ready supply of trial lawyers anxious to have a shot at any well-heeled company that might market an unsafe food is an important feature that is often overlooked in comparing the US regulatory approach with the rest of the world. </p>
<h2>US biotech goes to Europe</h2>
<p>The development of GMO foods in Europe played out at the same time as the initial steps toward integration of national food safety systems into the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) were taking place. It was politically contentious because national constituencies were losing some of their influence over home-based regulation. For example, the <a href="http://www.germanbeerinstitute.com/beginners.html">Reinheitsgebot</a>, or German beer purity laws, had virtually insured that anything labeled as beer had to have been produced in Germany. The economic interests of individual countries threatened by EU-wide food safety rules created a touchy political climate. </p>
<p>What is more, a series of high-profile food safety debacles undercut Europeans’ confidence in the food and agricultural industry, as well as the regulatory science behind government mandated food safety risk assessments. <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/1040/mad-cow-disease/timeline-mad-cow-disease-outbreaks">Mad cow disease in the UK</a> was the most prominent of these events, while the radioactive contamination of European fields after Chernobyl led Europeans to be especially leery of bad scientific decisions made elsewhere. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The FlavrSavr was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption, but it was pulled from store shelves within a few years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr#/media/File:Tomatoes_ARS.jpg">Jack Dykinga</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The US biotechnology industry blustered its way into this already touchy regulatory environment with GMO crops that they hoped to sell to European farmers. They insisted that Europeans simply accept the safety assessments that had already been made by a trio of US regulatory agencies – the FDA, USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Needless to say, the Europeans were not having any of it. </p>
<p>At the same time, European scientists themselves were moving into GMOs. A <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a12-nunn.htm">canned and labeled GMO tomato</a> had been successfully test-marketed in the mid-1990s through a cooperative agreement between Sainsbury’s, a major UK grocery chain, and the University of Nottingham. </p>
<p>As news about the US biotechnology industry’s attempt to force its way into European markets began to break, activists began campaigns against “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_4647000/4647390.stm">Frankenfoods</a>.” Sainsbury’s competitors began to advertise that their store brands were “GMO-free” and Sainsbury dropped the experiment, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/298229.stm">saying</a> “our customers have indicated to us very clearly that they do not want genetically-modified ingredients.”</p>
<p>One lasting legacy of this episode is that European grocery stores are willing to compete against one another by making claims that impugn the safety of foods being sold by their competitors, while American grocery chains are generally not. The aggressive approach taken by FDA against claims about rBST may well be a contributing factor to a legacy of American stores accepting the safety of GMO products. And as FDA has relaxed its efforts to police claims about the alleged health benefits of foods, the American food industry has shown signs of willingness to attract customers by touting the attractiveness of organic or “GMO-free” foods. The putative benefits of either are still not recognized by US regulatory agencies. </p>
<p>A slightly more complete history would point to a number of other incidents that have led to the sharp division of opinion that exists today. The <a href="http://ucanr.org/repository/CAO/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes">Flavr Savr tomato</a> in 1994 was the first genetically modified crop to be commercialized. Designed to stay ripe and firm longer, the product <a href="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v13/n6/full/nbt0695-540.html">failed to meet the needs</a> of the US tomato industry. But there is also ice-nucleating or “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/10/business/altered-bacteria-fight-frost.html">Frostban</a>” bacteria; <a href="http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn_new.html">StarLink corn</a>; the <a href="http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm">Pusztzai incident</a>; African <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/jhannah/geog270aut07/readings/GreenGeneRevolutions/Zerbe%20-%20GMOs%20in%20food%20aid.pdf">rejection of US food aid</a> – the list continues. </p>
<p>At the same time, contemporary activists, who have probably never heard of Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest, are now building steadily on the dissatisfaction expressed a quarter of a century ago to create an economically and politically vibrant “food movement” that wants nothing to do with biotechnology or genetically engineered foods.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48709/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul B Thompson receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Sloan Foundation and the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology.</span></em></p>What explains the huge gap between US and European consumers on GMO foods? A short history helps explain.Paul B. Thompson, Professor & W K Kellogg Chair in Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/459822015-08-12T05:37:51Z2015-08-12T05:37:51ZGM crop ban: how Scottish salmon – and public health – could have benefited from this technology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91486/original/image-20150811-11097-t5jar9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">World's omega-3 shortage affects farmed salmon</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=salmon&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=88774291">HLPhoto</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958">plan</a> to ban the growing of genetically modified crops is disappointing to many scientists. It would be highly unsatisfactory if, as it appears, such an important decision has been made by the Scottish government without a proper informed debate that takes the scientific evidence fully into consideration. It is not enough for the rural affairs secretary, Richard Lochhead, to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958">say that</a> he is not prepared to “gamble” with the future of Scotland’s £14bn food and drink sector. </p>
<p>What we are talking about is simply biological technology with potentially wide and varied applications. <a href="http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150129/srep08104/full/srep08104.html">Our work</a> at the University of Stirling’s Institute of Aquaculture is a case in point. We have been testing and assessing oils from genetically modified (GM) oilseed crops developed to provide sustainable sources of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. These nutrients are <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/fish-shellfish.aspx">recommended</a> as part of a healthy diet because they can protect against cardiovascular diseases and promote heart health. </p>
<p>Marine microalgae make most of the world’s omega-3, allowing it to work its way up the marine food chain as they are consumed. As a result, it can only be obtained in any significant amount from fish and seafood. This is why oily fish such as Atlantic salmon are among the best sources of the nutrient. </p>
<p>When it comes to farmed fish, the omega-3 has to be included in their diets, both for the good of their own health and to ensure that they have the high levels required to pass on to the consumer. This means that the feeds must mimic their wild cousins’ natural diet – hence the historic use of fishmeal and fish oil in “traditional” feeds. These tend to be imported at present, particularly from the west coast of south America, from Peru and Chile. </p>
<p>Unfortunately <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848615000137#">there is insufficient</a> omega-3 of the type required available in the world to satisfy human dietary requirements. As fishmeal and especially fish oil supplies are finite and limited, they are being spread thinner in feeds, and the levels of omega-3 in farmed fish <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114514001603">are declining</a>. Without new sources of omega-3, the absolute levels of the nutrient will fall below those of wild fish. </p>
<h2>Omega-3 being developed</h2>
<p>The oils that we are developing from GM oilseed crops – in collaboration with crop scientists led by Professor Johnathan Napier at <a href="http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk">Rothamsted Research</a> – offer a new and sustainable source of omega-3 that can be used to replace the wild fish oil. Having proven the concept, we are now seeking funding for commercial-scale trials. With a fair wind, the work will foreseeably be ready for full-scale commercialisation in the next two or three years. </p>
<p>The project addresses not only an important aspect of population health but also issues of environmental impact, sustainability and food security. When you consider that Scotland <a href="http://www.hriuk.org/about-heart-disease/Scotland/">has a high death rate</a> from heart disease – one third of all deaths – it is ironic that that we are also a nation producing many thousands of tonnes of farmed salmon that can be a rich source of the beneficial omega-3 fatty acids. </p>
<p>Yet the Scottish government would not permit these GM crops to be grown in the very country where the oils the crops produce can be applied most effectively. Assuming our work reaches the market, this would mean that Scotland would lose the financial benefits from growing the oilseed. Neither is it environmentally sound to grow crops elsewhere and ship the oils around the world when they could be grown locally.</p>
<p>These extra costs could undermine the sustainability of the aquaculture industry in Scotland, one of the key segments of the country’s food and drink sector. This is of direct relevance to the health and welfare of its people, not to mention consumers of Scottish farmed salmon all over the world. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91488/original/image-20150811-11088-cs6n0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Man with the ban: Richard Lochhead (left)</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottishgovernment/6916327849/in/photolist-bxaZiT-rurjoo-bnpXUD-ruzi7F-r9LFW5-rrfLP3-rp49dL-pRDBaM-9NJZVx-7uWyZ3-rLe5R8-rrUPKH-qPeBzm-rPgPGn-o5ZaHh-nQAJVn-oCZCV1-fPgu87-ciHL5q-rwLFt9-rwUvvD-qJEUrp-qJLczJ-qJL9sS-o61hv3-rFmJR8-qspTnn-roTz41-bqz2mv-bqz9Sv-cik4iy-rLeV64-rHXccE-rL8w8j-rL9Pfc-kG9uc6-bxaYPk-bxaWpH-bxaVWD-bxaWYg-bxaXqD-bxaXWX-ovsuiS-bxaVdg-bnqhZF-ovsQ3Q-bnZhBR-bnZhx6-rT36kw-rAGM1X">Scottish government</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Obviously this is not to suggest that omega-3 or GM are panaceas for all our ills. Our research simply highlights one application of GM technology to solve a critical problem, and the context within which it was developed. But while few would disagree that Scotland has a beautiful natural environment or that seeking to protect it is a good policy, what exactly are the risks that growing GM crops actually pose? The Scottish government’s announcement is rather unclear when it comes to this question. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.scotreferendum.com">September 2014</a>, Scotland showed the world how to have a truly public and inclusive debate on a subject of massive national and international importance, make a decision based on that debate, and then accept and live with that decision. If the true lesson of that was not to have a debate that you think you might lose, the Scottish government appears to have learned it all too well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45982/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Douglas receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.</span></em></p>New research is looking at obtaining precious omega-3 from GM crops – just as the Scottish government announced a ban.Douglas Tocher, Professor of Molecular Nutrition, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.